


^^^,^^. ^^.y. 






6 



/f/T 




Hollinger 

pH 83 

Mm Run H)3-2193 



NORTH POLE CONTROVERSY 



[Public— No. 4.87.] 
All act (S. GlOl) in-oviding for the promotion of Civil Kiisiueer Ko 

E. I'eiry, United States Navy, and tendering to him the thanks 

Congress. 

Skc. 2. That the thanks of Congress he, and the same are hereby, 
tendered to Robert E. Peary, TToited States Nary, for his Arctic explora- 
tions resulting in rcacli'ng tlie North Pole. 

Approved, March 4, 1911. 

It will he noticed that the above resolution does not accredit Mr. 
Peary with having discovered the North Pole, but with having reached 
the North Pole. Therefore the resolution does not recognize Mr. I'eary 
as the discoverer of the pole, nor does it preclude Dr. Cook's claim that 
he discovered the ijole on April 21, 190S, which was more than 11 
months before Mr. Peary reached the pole according to the date given 
by Peary himself, which was .ipril (5, 1900. 

Then, if one American citizen should receive congressional recognition 
for Arctic achieve-ments, why should not another American citizen 
receive the same recognition and the same thanks if he can establish to 
the satisfaction of Congress that he attained the same achievement, and 
attained it many months prior to the date that Mr. Peary claims to 
have done so. Dr. Cock announced to the world that he had reached 
the North Pole prior to the announcement of Mi-. Peary that he had 
done so, and was the first citizen of his own or any other country to 
claim to have reached that long-sought goal. Dr. Cook says he will 
establish by expert testimony, if given an opportunity, his claim of 
priority in reaching the pole. He states that more than GO Arctic 
explorers and scientific experts from different parts of the world have, 
recognized him as llie discoverer of the pole, and that not one Arctic 
explorer or scientific expert has disputed same on scientific grounds. 




eejmaeks of 






IN THE 



HOUSE OF REPEESENTATIVES 



FEBRUARY 8, 1915 



82300— 1457G 



WASHINGTON 
1915 



( 






V 



(3 >s^ <^ 



c; 



A^ 



EEMARKS 

OF 

irOX. WILLIAM J. FIELDS, 



jMr. FIELDS. Mr. Siieaker, under leave granted me to extend 
my remarks in the ItiiCOKD I desire to submit a few brief ob- 
servations, together with a letter from Dr. Frederick A. Cook 
to the Congress of the United States and certain other data 
bearing upon the polar controversy between Dr. Cook and Civil 
Engineer Robert E. Peary, both of whom claim to have reached 
the North Pole, and I trust that same, especially the letter of 
Dr. Cook, may receive the careful attention of the membership 
of the House. 

I desire to say first that I am not prompted by personal in- 
terest in Dr. Cook or by unkind feelings toward ]\Ir. Peary to 
speak upon this subject. I have only the slightest acquaintance 
with the former and have never met the latter. I therefore 
disclaim any personal interest in the controversy or personal 
preference for either gentleman. I am, however, interested in 
seeing each of these gentlemen receive fair treatment and a 
square deal at the hands of the American Congress and the 
American people in this controversy, which is no more than 
each and every American is entiiied to in any matter with 
wliich the Congress has to do or in which the people are inter- 
ested. I assume that the Congress is interested in this matter 
for the reason that it did by act of Congress tender the thanks 
of Congress to Mr. Peary for reaching the North Pole, which 
will be found in Public, No. 4S7, S. 6104, which reads as follows : 

LPublic— No. 487.1 
Au act (S. 6104) providing tor the promotion of Civil Engineer Robert 

E. Poarj-, United States Navy, and tendering to liim tlic thanlis of 

Congress. 

7?c it enacted, etc., That the Tresident of the United States be, and 
he is hereby, authorized to phice Civil Engineer Robert E. Peary, United 
States Navy, on the retired list of the Corps of CMvil Engineers with the 
ranli of rear admiral, to date from April (J, 1909, with the highest 
retired jpay of that grade under existing law. 

Sec. :.'. That the thanks of Congress be, and the same are hereby, 
tendered to Robert E. I'eary. United States Navy, for his Arctic explora- 
tions resiiltin:! in reaching the North Pole. 

Approved, March 4, 1911. 

It will be noticed that the above resolution does not accredit 
Mr. Peary with liaviug discovered the North Pole, but with hav- 
ing reached the North Pole. Therefore the resolution does hot 
recognize Mr. Peary as the discoverer of the pole, nor does it 
preclude Dr. Cook's claim that he discovered the pole on April 
21, 190S, which was more than 11 months before Mr. Peary 
reached the pole according to the date given by Peary himself, 
which was April 6, 1909. 

I am informed that some gentlemen have said on the floor 
of this House that Congress is not concerned about this matter, 
and that it has no jurisdiction over same. In reply to this 
82300— 1457G 3 



statement I desire to ask, If Congress is not concerned about 
this matter, wliy, tlien, did it tender its thanlis to Sir. Peary for 
his pohir attainment? Kor did it stop at a vote of tlianks, but 
by the same resolution it granted him a pension at $6,000 per 
annum for the remainder of his life, and by other governmental 
action he has been paid many thousand dollars out of the Public 
Treasurj^ during his various leaves of absence from the naval 
Service, much of which time was spent in polar explorations. 
This enormous sum, the thanks of Congress for his polar at- 
tainment, and the pension granted him was an admission and 
an implied acknowledgment on the part of the Congx^ess of its 
interest in, and jurisdiction over, the polar efforts and achieve- 
ments or controversies of American citizens. 

It can not be argued in either justice or sincerity that Mr. 
Peary should receive the special favors of Congress for his 
polar attainment because he happened to be fortunate enough 
to be in the United States Navy. First, no man would dare 
contend that a naval officer should be given special advantages 
over a private citizen in a civil pursuit which was not a part 
of his official duty, and, second, the recommendation of the 
Secretary of the Navy on the resolution which acknov/ledged 
Mr. Peary's claim for Arctic explorations recommends that he 
is not entitled to such recognition for naval services, but throws 
him solely upon his claim as a private citizen for Arctic ex- 
plorations. I submit copy of the report of the Secretary of the 
Navy, just referred to, which reads as follows: 

Navx Department, 
'Washington, Fehiuary 10, 1910. 
To the Chairman Committee on Naval Affairs, 

House of Representatives. 

My Dear Congressman : The receipt is acknowledged of your letter 
of the Sth instant, inclosing a bill (II. R. 19971) providing for the 
appointment of Commander Rohert E. Peary a rear admiral in the 
Navy as an additional number in grade, and placing him upon the re- 
tired list, and requesting for- the committee the views and recommenda- 
tions of the department thereon. 

In reply I have the honor to inform you that Robert Edwin Peary 
entered the naval service of tbe jnited States as a civil engineer on 
October 2(5, 1881, and has been an officer of the Navy continuously 
since that date, performing the duties required of a civil engineer 
under orders from the Navy Department, except when on leave. 

During his service in the Navy Civil Engineer Peary has been granted 
leave of absence abroad as follows : 

April 6, 1886, leave abroad, 8 months. 

October 31, 1887, leave abroad, 12 months. 

February 24, 1891, leave abroad, 18 months. 

November 21, 1892, leave abroad, H years. 

May 2, 1896, leave abroad, 6 months. 

Slay 25. 1897, leave abroad, 5 months. 

September 9. 1903, leave abroad, 3 years. 

April 9, 1907, leave abroad, 3 years. 

Tbe unexpired portion of this last leave was revoked on July 2. 
1908, and Civil Engineer Peary was ordered to report to the Coast and 
Geodetic Survey for duty in making tidal observations in Grant Land 
and Greenland. 

It would appear that the bill in question is framed for the purpose 
of rev.-arding Civil Engineer Peary for having reached the North Pole ; 
and while baving successfully accomplished this self-imposed task is 
most commendable and reflects great credit not only upon him but 
also upon the entire Nation, his various exploring expeditions can not 
be regarded as having been conducted for a strictly military or naval 
purpose, and for this reason it seems inappropriate to confer upon him 
a title for which his previous education, training, and service have not 
fitted him. 

It is therefore recommended that in the title of the hill and in the 
fourth line thereof the word " commander " be changed to " civil 
82300—14576 



engineei'," tlie latter being Mr. Peary's coiTcet official tlesignation, aud, 
fui'tber, that instead of appointing him a rear admiral and placing 
him upon the retired list as such, that he he retired as a civil euginecj', 
with the rank of rear admiral, aud with the highest retired pay of that 
grade under existing law. 

Faithfully, yours, G. ton L. Meyeu. 

Tlien, if one American citizen should receive congressional 
recognition foi* Arctic acliieyemeuts, why slioiild not anotlier 
American citizen receive tlao same recognition and tlie same 
tlianlis if lie can establish to the satisfaction of Congress that 
he attained the same achievement, aud attained it many months 
prior to the date that Mr. Peary claims to have done so. Dr. 
Cook announced to the world that he had reached the North 
Pole prior to the announcement of Mr. Peary that he had done 
so, and was the first citizen of his own or any other country to 
claim to have reached that long-sought goal. Dr. Cook says he 
will establish by export testimony, if given an opportunity, his 
claim of priority iu reaching the pole. He states that more than 
(50 Arctic explorers and scientific experts from different parts of 
the world have recognized him as the discoverer of the pole, aud 
that not one Arctic explorer or scientific expert has disputed same 
on scientific grounds, and that he is iu possession of documents 
proving this acknowledgment ; and these documents were written 
after the publication of the polar records of both himself and 
Peary, and most of them were written during the year 1914, 
after a most careful study had been made of the reports of 
both himself and Peary. So, in view of the claim of Dr. Cook 
that each and all Arctic explorers who have spoken on the con- 
troversy recognize him as the discoverer of the pole, it is, iu 
my opinion, incumbent upon Congress to accord to him the same 
treatment that it accorded to Mi*. Peary. It should give him an 
opportunity to establish his claim of priority by giving him and 
his witnesses a hearing before a committee of Congress; and if, 
after a thorough hearing that committee is convinced that Dr. 
Cook did reach the pole, he should then receive national recog- 
nition through the Congress of the United States, which would 
automatically establish his cloim of priority, as there is no con- 
troversy between Cook and Peary as to the date that each 
claims to have reached the pole. He is an American citizen 
the same as Peary, and should receive equal treatment at the 
hands of the American Congress. Justice demands that he be 
granted a hearing by the same Congress that gave Peary recog- 
nition, and a just public sentiment will sooner or later force 
such a hearing; and it is my contention that it should not be 
delayed, but should be granted while the expert witnesses who 
are familiar with the data and the facts aud who are capable 
of passing upon same and giving competent testimony are ob- 
taiunble. And in this connection I make the contention that the 
weight of expert computations on the observations of both 
Cook and Peary is in favor of Cook. As a basis of Peary's 
claim in this regard I submit copy of a letter of Hon. O. H. Titt- 
mann, Superintendent of the Coast aud Geodetic Survey, which 
reads as follows : 

DePARTJIEXT of COMilERCB, 

United States Coast and Geodetic SurveTj 

Washington, March J, 191i. 
Mr. B. N. NoRTONj 

G952 Harvard Avenue, Chicago, III. 
Sir : In reply to your letter of February 28, 1914, I have to inform 
you that you can obtain information in regard to observations, etc., of 
82300—14576 



6 

Admiral Peary on his trip to tlie far nortli in his booli called " Peary's 
North Pole." 

You will find a statement of the testimony of Hugh C. Mitchell, one 
of the computers of the Coast and Geodetic Survey, who worked up 
Peary's observations, on pages lr>o-142 of the hearings before the 
Committee on Naval Affairs, subcommittee on private bills, dated March 
4, 1910, a copy of which can probably be obtained by writing to the 
chairman of the Committee on Naval Affairs, House of Representatives, 
Washington, D. C. 

The computations of Peary's work were made by Messrs. Hugh C. 
Mitchell and Charles li. Duvall, who were employed for the purpose by 
Mr. Peary. These computations were, therefore, not made officially by 
the Coast and Geodetic Survey, although this ofHce has always vouched 
for the accuracy of the work done by these two men. 
Respectfully, 

O. H. TiTTMANN, Superintendent. 

It will be noted from tlie above letter that the observations of 
Mr. Peai'y vs'ere computed by only two gentlemen who were con- 
nected with the Coast and Geodetic Survey, but who were not 
acting ofScially in their computations of Peary's observations 
but were paid for same by Mr. Peary himself. I do not ques- 
tion the integrity of these gentlemen or the correctness of their 
computations of Peary's observations, but in connection with 
their report I wish to call attention to the fact that the obser- 
vations of Dr. Cook were computed by Mr. Clark Brown, asso- 
ciate member of the American Society of Civil Engineers, and 
Mr. Brown's computations were approved by David II. Lee, 
Civil engineer, B. S., Cornell University, 1SS9, also a member 
of the American Society of Civil Engineers ; J. M. Taylor, M. E., 
Cornell .University, ISSS ; E. G. Eaynor, civil engineer, B. S., 
New York University, 1903; R. C. Holt, civil engineer; and 
J. C. Green, associate member American Society of Civil En- 
gineers, Michigan Agricultural College, 1901. All five of these 
gentlemen are scientific experts from different parts of the 
country, and four of them were not then and are not now ac- 
quainted with Dr. Cook. Therefore if we accept the report of 
the two scientific experts who computed the observations of 
Mr. Peary, we should also accept the report of the five scientific 
experts who computed the observations of Dr. Cook, and who 
show by their computations that Cook reached the pole. 

Not only do the principles of justice demand that Dr. Cook 
be given a hearing and that this controversy be settled for all 
time, but our educational interests demand its settlement. The 
students of history of the present and future are entitled to have 
the controversy settled while the claimants are both living 
and each able to defend his case, so that they may not be mis- 
led by history or left to guess at the facts. 

Then there is another reason why an investigation of this 
matter should be made by Congress. Congress has officially 
acknov\iedged that Mr. Peary reached the pole. I am informed 
that it is now contended that he did not reach the pole, and 
that it can be established that he did not if opportunity is given. 
I do not attempt to vouch for the truthfulness of that state- 
ment or the soundness of the contention. But I do contend that 
Congress was not indulging in child's play or idle formalities in 
its official recognition of Mr. Peary's claim that he reached the 
pole. It was dealing with a question of both national and inter- 
national interest and should be sure of the grounds upon which 
it based its action. I understand that it was stated by Miss 
Lilian E. Keil, former stenographer for Hampton's Magazine, 
before the Committee on Education of this House a few days 
82300—14576 



Pigo that the alleged Peary report of his trip to the pole vras 
not a product of his owu brain, hut was a product of the edi- 
torial staff of Hampton's Magazine. If this be true, it is suf- 
ficient to raise the ciuestiou of doubt as to whether the report 
was written on information and calculations received from Mr. 
Peary, or on information from some other source. It is there- 
fore the duty of Congress to inquire into the authenticity of 
the report on which it gave Peary recognition. If the charges 
advanced by Miss Keil are untrue, they are an injustice to Mr. 
Peary and the editorial staff and the magazine referred to, and 
their truthfulness should be immediately challenged and dis- 
proved by Mr. Peary and all oiher parties concerned. If they 
are true, Mr. Peary and his staff have done an injustice to botli. 
the Congress and the public by leaving this matter open to so 
much doubt. As a basis of my reference to the charges of Miss 
Keil before the Committee on Education of the House of Repre- 
sentatives, I here submit copy of an affidavit by her containing 
practically the same charges above referred to, which reads as 
follows : 

WashixotoNj D. C, Jiili/ 1, m.'i. 
To v:hom it may concern: 

While employed as editoiial stenographer liy Hampton's Magazine it 
fell to my lot to take the story entitled '• The discovery of the North 
Pole," which ran in Hampton's in 1910. This story was published over 
the name of Robert E. Peary, was dictated to me by a woman — Mrs. 
Elsa Barker — and of it Mr. Peary wrote not one word. I still hold in 
my possession my stenographer's notebooks containing my original short- 
hand notes of this story. 

Later in the year a member of this same enterprising, unscrupnlons 
editorial staff mannfactnrcd and dictated to me a faked " statement " 
for the press to which I was commanded to sign the name " Frederick 
A. Cook " by typewriter, but of which Dr. Cook had absolutely no 
knowledge until it appeared in the public press. 

This faked " statement " — commonly called " the Cook mnfessiou "— 
appeared simultaneously with the issue of Hampton's Magazine for 
January, 1911, which contained the first instalment of what was known 
as '■ Ur. Cook's own story," in which, after Dr. Cook had O. K.'d the 
galley proofs, I helped to insert certain insanity and "confession" 
clauses. 

The above is a voluntary statement made by me in the interests of 
justice without the knowledge of Dr. Frederick A. Cook. 

Lilian E. Kiel. 
City of WashingtoNj District of Columbia, ss: 

Subscribed and sworn to before mc this 1st day of July, 1914. 

[seal.] E. C. Owex, Notaru Pnhlic. 

I maintain that if the charges made by Miss Kiel are untrue, 
Mr. Peary and those implicated with him by these charges can 
not afford to sit idly by and let them go unnoticed or unchal- 
lengetl. And if the charges of Miss Kiel are not refuted or met 
by a satisfactory explanation, the Congress and the country 
must admit that a mistalie was made by giving Mr. Peary con- 
gressional recognition for his polar achievements, the report in 
question being a part of the basis upon which they gave such 
recognition. And, further still, Dr. Cook is heralding charges 
against Mr. Peary from one end of the United States to the 
other, so grave in character that they are inflaming the public 
mind to such an extent that the public is contending that inas- 
}uuch as Congress has impliedly acknowledged its jurisdiction 
over this matter by its recognition of the Arctic achievements of 
Mr. Peary, it is now incumbent upon Congress to make a full 
and thorough investigation of the claims of Dr. Cook and the 
S2300— 14.j7G 



charges by liim against Mr. Peary, charging the latter with 
bribery, fraud, and falsehoods, to discredit and destroy him 
(Cook) and establish his (Peary's) polar claim, upon which 
claim he received congressional recognition. 

The public is contending that the charges which Cook is 
making against Peary should be answered and refuted or ac- 
knowledged by Mr. Peary. I would not make any contention 
for the purpose of precipitating further controversy between 
the two gentlemen under discussion, but I do contend that Con- 
gress should take the matter in hand and should give a full and 
open hearing to both claimants and their witnesses. If the 
charges are untrue, the country should knov/ it, and Cook's 
campaign against Peary should come to an end. If. on the other 
hand, tiiey are true, the country, and especially the Congress, 
which gave official recognition to Mr. Peary, should know it. 
I maintain that neither Mr. Peary nor the Congress which 
has officially recognized him should be willing to permit the 
campaign of Dr. Cook to further proceed without notice. It 
is my opinion and my contention that the controversy should 
b& settled and settled right. And in the hope that it may lead 
to that end I am introducing the following resolution : 

Be it resolved, etc.. That the thanks of CoDgress he, and the same are 
hereby, tendered to Dr. Frederick A. Cook for his Arctic explorations, 
resulting in his i-eaching the North Pole. 

This resolution is practically identical with section 2 of the 
resolution extending the thanks of Congress to Mr. Peary, and 
if it should be passed by Congress it will aiitomatically settle 
the question of priority of discovery in favor of Dr. Cook. I 
introduce this resolution in the hope that it may lead to a full 
hearing and proper and final settlement of the question in con- 
troversy. The controversy should be settled, to the end that 
if Cook's claim of discovery of the North Pole and his charges 
against Peary are untrue, the country should know it and his 
campaign of assault upon Peary should cease. On the other 
hand, if he can establish his claim that he reached the North 
Pole, as he says he can, and as the great number of Arctic 
explorers and scientists say he can, he should not only be 
recognized by the Congress and the country as the discoverer 
of the North Pole, but should be commended by the world 
for the brave, fearless, and untiring fight which he has waged 
for his rights. 

I include in the data submitted herewith copy of the contract 
betv\'een Mr. Peary and the New York Times, which was printed 
in the Times on September 11, 1909. I also include copies of 
numerous letters from Arctic explorers and scientific experta 
to which I invite special attention: and I desire to say here 
that I have seen all the original letters from which these 
copies are made. I submit all this together with Dr. Cook'a 
letter to the Congress of the United States to which I have 
previously referred, for the information of the membership 
of the House. And I insist that in view of the preponderance 
of evidence in favor of the claim of priority at the North Pole 
by Dr. Cook, and his request for and persistent efforts to 
secure a hearing before Congress, the same body that heard 
Mr. Peary, a hearing should be granted to Cook. 
S2300— 14570 



The data above refen-ed to is submitted iu tlie following 
order : 

a-IMES COXTEACT WITH TEAr.y AS rT'TLISHED IN ^'EW XORK TIMES 
SErXEMBEH 11^ 1909. 

New York Times, 
New York City, July 6, 190S. 

Gentlemex : I herewith acknowledge the receipt of the sum of 
$4,000 from the New Yorli Times o» behalf of itself and associates. 
It is uncl.istood that in making this advance the Times does not 
assume any responsibility for or any connection with the expedition 
on which 1 am about to embark, and which has for its purpose the 
finding of the North Pole. The money is advanced to me as a loan 
to be repaid to the New York Times and its associates out of tha 
proceeds of the news and literary rights resulting from this expe- 
dition, it being understood that if for any reason the expedition i« 
abandoned before the fall of 1008 the money is to be refunded to the 
Times. If tne expedition is successful and the pole is discovered I 
promise to use every means in my power to reach civilization and wire 
to the Times the full story of the discovery over my own signature. 
The Times is to have the sole rights to the news of the discovery, and 
is to have the exclusive right of its publication in all parts of the 
world. My understanding is that the Times, on Its part, agrees to 
syndicate the news both in Europe and America, and to give to me 
the entire amount it receives, :.fter deducting costs of cables, tolls, 
etc. The Times and its associates will pay me what they consider 
a reasonable amount lor the use of the material in their own publi- 
cations. From i'le S'Un thus raised tlie .$4,000 is to be repaid, and 
I am free to sell tlie magazine and hook rights to my best advantage. 

It is understood, however, that should the nevv's reports by any 
possibilty not realize the sum of $4,000, any deficit will be reimbursed 
to the Times from the magazine and book rights. 

Sliould the expedition uot be successful in finding the pole, but 
should simply result in explorations in the Far North, the Times is 
to DC repaid .$4,000 out of the news, magazine, and book rights of 
the expedition, so far as they may go toward the liquidation of that 
claim. 

Yours, very truly, K. E. Peaky. 

[Editorial comment from the Evening Tribune, Des Moines, Iowa, Juno 
•2-i, 1914.] 

Whatever else Dr. Cook may be right or wrong about, he is most cer- 
tainly right about the elforts that are being made to suppress him and 
bis contentions over the North I'olo discovery. 

The Ev<'ning Tribune is in receipt of a mass of printed matter about 
the doctor, sent from no acknowledged source, that in the preparation 
must represent weeks of labor and hundreds of dollars' expense. 

The question that naturally suggests itself is why such an effort 
should now be considered necessary to discredit the doctor, and who is 
financially interested enough to go to the expense? 

Wasiiixgtox, D. C, Januanj t, 1011. 
To Dr. Frederick A. Cook, 

yew York City. 

Dear Dr. Cook : I thank you very much for your kind letter, and I 
assure you that I have never varied iu the belief that you and Civil 
Engineer Peary reached the pole. After reading the published ac- 
counts daily and critically of i)oth claimants, I was forced to the con- 
clusion from their striking similarity that each of you was the eye- 
witness of the other's success. 

Without collusion it would have been impossible to have written 
accounts so similar, and yet in view of the ungracious controversy that 
has occurred since that view (collusion) would be impossible to imagine. 

While I have never believed that either of you got within a pin point 
of the pole, I have steadfastly held that both got as near the goal as 
was possible to ascertain, considering the imperfections of the instru- 
ments used and the personal errors of individuals under circumstances 
so adverse to absolute accuracy. 

Again, I have been broad enough in my views to believe that there 
was room enough at the pole for two, and never narrow enough to 
believe that only one man got there. 

I believe that both are entitled to the honop of the achievement. 
Very truly, yours, 

W, S. Schley. 

82300— 14o76 



10 

INDOESHMEXTS OF LETTER BY ADMIKAL SCHLBT, JANUARY 7, 1911. 

San Jose, Cal., April 22, 191!f. 
I agree with Admiral Schley and have drawn my conclusions from 
like reasoning. 

Maurice Connell. 

CMaurice Connell, connected with United States Weather Bureau and 
member of the Greely Arctic Expedition.) 

COPY OF INSCRIPTION ON BACK OF PHOTOGRAPH PRESENTED TO DR. COOK 
BY DR. J. G. KNOWLTON, SURGEON TO THE " NEPTUNE," SCOT-T EXPEDI- 
TION. 

For Dr. Frederick A. Cook, the first man at the North Pole, and I 
may say, the only one up to date. 
From' his friend. 

Dr. J. G. Knowlton, 
Surgeon to Steamer "Neptune," Scott Expedition. 
January 19, 1914. 

copy of indorsement on schley letter. 

Port Arthur, Canada. 
I am of the same opinion as Admiral W. S. Schley, that Frederick 
A. Cook was the first to reach the ISforth Pole. 

John B. Newsomb, 
(Ten years in the Arctic.) 

COPY OF indorsement ON ADMIRAL SCHLEY'S LETTER TO DR. COOK. 

After careful consideration of Rear Admiral Schley's Arctic letters to 
Dr. Cook, I don't hesitate to indorse every word the admiral said of the 
doctor. 

John Byers Wirt, 
Commodore Commanding National Naval Veterans, U. S. of A. 

On a copy of the late Rear Admiral W. S. Schley's letter of indorse- 
ment to Dr. Cook, Capt. J. E. Bernier wrote as follows : 
This is my opinion. 

J. E. Bef.nier, 
Leader of Various Official Canadian Arctic Expeditions. 
Canada, January 19, 19V,. 

COPY OP indorsement on SCHLEY LETTER. 

Washington, D. C, February 5, 191!,. 
I indorse fully the foregoing letter of Rear Admiral W. S. Schley to 
Dr. Frederick A. Cook, of date January 7, 1911, so far as it refers to 
Dr. Cook's achievement. 

Middleton Smith, 
Observer and Naturalist, Point Barroio Expedition, 

COPY OF 'indorsement ON SCHLEY LETTER. 

This is the way I have always looked at it. 

Samuel J. Entrtkin, 
Second in Command of the Peary Expedition of 1S9^. 
March 13, 1914. 

COPY OF INDORSEMENT ON SCHLEY LETTER. 

April 22, 1914. 
My Deae Dr. Cook : I indorsed these sentiments at the time they 
were first expressed, and have discovered no reasons in the intervening 
years to change my opinion. 

Sincerely, Samuel P. Orth, 

Professor of Political Economy, Cornell University, Neio York, 

Meynher of the "Miranda " Arctic Expedition, 189i. 

COPY OP indorsement on SCHLEY LETTER. 

New York City, January gSy 191k. 
The opinion of Admiral Schley is my belief regarding the rival 
polar claims. „ „ „ , 

Edwin S. Brooke, Jr., 
Crocker Land Expedition, 1913. 

82500— 1457G 



11 

To the Coiifjrcss of Ihc Uiiiled States (pixsciited tlirou(jh ) : 

As fiu American citizen, I a?-k Congress to act upon the roindextcr 
joint resolution 144,' \vhic!i vras introduced April ao, 1914, or any 
otlier that may have been introduced later, to the end that we Ameri- 
cans may have the right to say that an American was the tiisl co reach 
the gcos'raphical spot known as tiie North Pule, for which statement at 
the present time no autiiority exists. 

The question of who discovered the North Polo is iu douht in the 
minds of many people the world over. It is a question that should he 
settled and settled right : and it would seem that now is the fitting 
time to do it, while hoth claimants are alive, and evidence, such as 
there is, available. 

Many people in Europe, and multitudes iu the United States, are 
thoroughly convinced that Dr. Frederick A. Cook was the first man to 
reach 90' north latitude. 

As time passes and citizens of this country read the story of the 
conquest of the pole as told hy Dr. Cook iu his book entitled, " My 
Attainment of the I'ole," or listen to him personally as he tolls his 
experiences from the lecture platform, it is borne in upon them that 
there has been a great injustice done, and that the popular belief that 
R. E. Peary is the discoverer of the North Pole is erroneous. 

To my mind, the chief proof that an explorer can give of what he 
claims to have accomplished is to be found in his account or narrative. 
We like that to ring true and to tally with such facts as we know. 
Dr. Cook in his book. " My Attainment of the Pole," gives us a story 
that does ring true, and his claim that he was the first of all men to 
reach the North Pole is, I think, proven beyond question. The story of 
its conquest and of the wonderful journey over the ice floes with his 
two Eskimo companions is most convincing. 

The record of observations by sextant for latitude made by Dr. Cook 
are as good, I believe, as possible to be taken under such adverse con- 
ditions as must prevail in the vicinity of the pole. The novel idea of 
proving his position b.v accurate and painstaking observations of 
.shadows for a period of 24 hours while at the pole was a happy 
thought, and such results as he got would obtain nowhere else but at 
the North or South Poles. 

Should further proof be needed, it is to be found in the reports 
given hy R. E. I'eary in his book, entitled the " North Pole," written 
some time after Dr. Cook"s statements had been made public. In this 
book Mr. Peary, writing of his journey to the pole, describes in detail 
the same conditions of ice, water, and sky that Dr. Cook found the 
year before ; also where Dr. Cook saw land to the west, first between 
the eighty-fourth and eighty-fifth parallels of north latitude, and later 
the submerged island between the eighty-seventh and eighty-eighth par- 
allels, Peary, too far east to possibly see these lands, yet found the 
divisions in the floes caused by the obstruction of those lands to the 
easterly drift of the ice. Ho also, in one case at least, reported animal 
life, indicating that land could not be too far away. 

There are probably but few people who doubt that R. E. Peary 
reached the pole iu 1009 ; but if so, how are we to account for his 
description of that journey, tallying so completely with that ))reviously 
given to the public by Dr. Cook, unless we admit that Dr. Cook must 
have made the same journey the year before, as lie says he did? 

To those of us who know Dr. Cook, his simple word is suflicient ; to 
those who do not, his word should be as good as auoiuer s. 

I believe that anyone who has had much experience in the Arctic 
regions and who is familiar with the narratives of both Dr. Cook and 
R. E. Peary, and who is honest and unprejudiced, must feel that the 
honor of discovering the North Polo belongs by right to Dr. Frederick 
A. Cook. 

Unfortunately, it would seem that as a rule the press of this country 
love sensation better than truth, and have been most ready to print 
charges of fake and fraud as advanced by Peary and his' followers, 
while their columns have been closed to Dr. Cook when he has wished 
to answer these charges and present his own claims. 

The people of the United States, however, love truth and justice, and 
I think it would be peculiarly fitting for the Congress of the United 
States to investigate this matter impartially and settle for all time 
as to whom belongs the honor of discovering the North Pole. I ask that 
in the interest of national honor, justice, and geographical and historical 
knowledge. 

Respectfully, Edward A. Haven, 

Master Mariner. 

(Served as oflicer in navigating and handling ships in Arctic ice for 
14 years ; the last voyage as first oflicer with the Ziegler polar cxpedi- 
82300—14576 



12 

tion of 1903-1905. Also three years' experience sledging and boat sail- 
ing on Alaskan rivers and coasts.) 
Oakland, Cal., December 2S, 1911,. 

United States Revende-Cuttee Sehvich, 

Jtl5ii Piedmont Avenue, Oakland, Gal., 

April in, 191i. 
Mr. E. C. ROST, 

6953 Harvard Avenue, Chicago, III. 
Dear Sie : I wish to acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 15th 
Instant in regard to the work of the Arctic explorers, Dr. Frederick A. 
Cook, of Brooklyn, N. Y., and Civil Engineer Robert E. Peary, United 
States Navy, retired, inclosing a copy of a letter to Dr. Cook from the 
late Admiral W. S Schley, United States Navy, which I return you 
herewith. 

You ask me for my opinion as to the merit of the claims for dis- 
covery of the geographical point, the North Pole, and in reply I wish 
to state that I have met both the persons referred to, have carefully 
studied their reports, and from the experience I have had during five 
cruises to the Arctic Ocean on the Pacific side in Government ships 
I fully indorse the view of the late Admiral Schley in his letter to Dr. 
Cook in every particular, and I regret very much that any public con- 
troversy ever took place betwen the two gentlemen after the hardship 
and suffering they so bravely had endured for the sake of national 
pride and science. The priority of discovery evidently belongs to 
Dr. Cook. 

I am, sir, very truly, yours, 

O. C. HamlbTj 
Senior Captain U. S. Revenue-Gutter Service, retired. 

Strandboulevaed 114, 

Kocenhavn. 

My Dear De. Cook : It is very kind of you, indeed, to send me the 
photos of j'ourself and those from the voyage. I do appreciate them 
very much, and prize them highly amongst the other explorers. Once 
more, please accept my most sincere thinks. 

May I congratulate you? I saw in the papers that the Congress 
was going to confer an honor on you. I need not tell you that I was 
very pleased. 

I have from our mutual friend, Hamlet, received the congressional 
report on the Peary investigation, and was extremely interested. Good 
God ! That committee of the National Geographic Society have cer- 
tainly taken matters easy. It seems really incred'ble. If a similar 
report from the Congress have been sent out, I would be very pleased 
to receive it. 

I am angry with Peary, as I have written and written again regard- 
ing some glacialogical work done on the ice cap on Greenland, but 
have never received an answer, and I presume that he does not like 
that I brought back the information that the Peary Channel did not 
exist. That's the only reason that I can find out. 

Do tell me, are there in your "Through the First Antarctic Night" 
any glacialogical information, or have you written anything on this 
theme, for instance, from your Mount McKinley voyage? I am work- 
ing hard with it, as I have to draw up my ofiicial report over the 
voyage across the northern Greenlandic ice cap. Did I ever send you 
my book? If not, let me know, and I will send it to yon at once, and 
if you care for my photo I would be honored to send you one. 

What definite information is there in Peary's book about his having 
reached the pole? Has he written anything? 

With my kindest regards and thanks, I am, 
Yours, faithfully, 

E.JNAE MiKKELSBN, 

Leader Arctic Expedition to Bering Sea, Member Ziegler 

Arctic Expedition, Leader Ericloscn Relief Expedition. 

Durban, April 2Jj, 19U. 
Dr. F. A. Cook. 

Dear Sir : Most sincere thanks for your excellent book, My Attain- 
ment of the North Pole. 

I've read it with the greatest interest, and I must congratulate you 
as the winner of the blue ribbon. By the way, permit me to tell you 
that I've always been one of your most ardent supporters, even in those 
82300—14576 



flays when the Poary gang had the run of the press ami you \Yere silent. 
Amongst those who have had a peep behind the curtains of Arctic ex- 
ploration Peary's true character is only too well knowil to be com- 
mented upon and his doings are the least said infamous. 

You have fought a noble fight with a true gentleman's weapon, which 
is more than what can be said about your antagonist, and I sincerely 
hope that the justice you are demanding shall not be long in forthcom- 
ing. 

Hoping to have the pleasure of one day maliiug your personal ac- 
quaintance, I beg to remain. 

Sincerely, yours, • R. BEnGEXDAHL. 

Of the Zierjler Expedition. 

Address, Warberg, Sweden. 

ScHOOXER " Cakkie W. Babson," 
709 Cleveland Street^ Tampa, Fla., May 23, 19l'i. 
Er. F. A. Cook.. Chicago, III. 

Dear Doctor : It was with much pleasure that I received your book, 
My Attainment of the Pole, on my arrival here from sea. 

'Please accept my sincere thanks for your kind remembrance, and rest 
assured I shall keep it as a token of the first discoverer of the North 
Pole. 

I have sent a card in your behalf to our Congressman Spaeksiax. 
Thanking you kindly once more, hoping this finds all well. 
Yours, sincerely, 

Capt. .John Marshall. 
P. S. — You will remember the schooner C. W. Bah.'ion, of Gloucester, 
Mass. I have sailed her for the past eight years in the Central Amer- 
ican trade. M. 

Chicago, III., Bcptcmler l), 191',. 
To u'liom it man eonccni: 

During a luncheon at the New "U'ashington Hotel, in Seattle, Wash., 
■Wednesday, .lanuary 8, 1913, when Capt. Otto Sverdrup, his daughter. 
Dr. Frederick A. Cook, and myself were present, the captain said : " Dr. 
Cook, I have always taken a great deal of interest in your polar explo- 
rations on account of my own work in the Arctic. I have read vour 
narrative carefully, and by the indisputable facts contained therein I 
am confident that you reached the North Pole." 

G. W. Baker. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this loth day of September, 1914, 
Chicago, 111. 

[SEAL.] CUAS. L. GROBECKER, 

Isotary PiiliUe. 

Umatilla, Lake Couxxt, Fla., January 25, 1911. 
Dr. Frederick A. Cook, 

Waldorf-Astoria, New York. 
My Dear Dr. Cook": Your very kind letter of .January 13, inclosing 
letter (copy) from Admiral Schley and yours (copy) to lion. George 
Edmond Foss was forwarded me from Chattanooga to this place, where 
I am wintering. 

I thank you for your kind expressions, and feel highly honored for 
your anprcciation of my note. 

I never had a doubt as to your success in discovering the Pole, hut 
you were from the first most unjustly and savagely treated and most 
so by one who should have backed you up or else be silent. 

I agree with Admiral Schley that there is room enough at the Pole 
for two, but even if Congress makes Commander Peary a rear admiral 
it will not convince me that he has discovered the Pole. Ho may have 
done so, but his action toward you does not come up to my idea of a 
true sportsman. 

My dear Doctor, you will not have to wait for your reward from our 
children's, children. The American people are at times slow to see a 
truth, but they generally strike it in time, and you must remember that 
your claim was subjected to a deluge of vituperation, and it takes time 
to remove this; and bear in mind — 

" Truth crushed to earth will rise again." 
I anticipate and heartily wish a thorough vindication of your claim, 
I am, 

Very respectfully and sincerely, 

P. J. A. Cleary, 
Brigadier General, United States Army, Retired. 
82300—14.576 



14 

copt of indoesements ox schley lettek. 

419 West Thirty-ninth Street^ 

New York City, April 25, 19U. 
I believe in Dr. Cook having reached the North Pole, as I have been 
with him myself and as I helped him to prepare in the lonely winter 
months for his dash to the pole. I have always known him for a man 
of his word, and, as for Civil Engineer Peary", I could point out more 
than once that he didn't keep his word ; therefore I don't believe in 
any way In Civil Engineer Peary. 

If I would not know some of the inside history and only read the 
published accounts of Ov. Cook and Civil -Engineer Peary, I v/ould be 
of the opinion that both reached the pole. 

Rudolph Feanke. 

The Creighton University Observatory, 

TWENTY-riFTII AND CaLIFOR.VIA STREETS, 

Omaha, Nedr., August U, 101.'/. 
Senator O'Gokman, of New York : 

Honored Sir : Allow me to respectfully ask your honor to use your 
influence in having Congress investigate Dr. Cook's claims as to the 
discovery of the North Pole. 

It is only fair that Congress should take up his case, as it did that 
of Admiral Peary, and that Dr. Cook himself should ask for such a 
hearing shows that he is not afraid of submitting his data to the 
Nation's scrutiny. 

While I am personally convinced of the many advantages and even 
of the necessity of this investigation, my name does not in any way 
imply the official sanction of the Creighton University. 
Respectfully, yours, 

William P. Rigge. 

Albany, January 27, 1915. 
Dr. Fkedeeick A. Cook, 

BrooMyn, N. Y. 
Dear Doctor : I am very glad to learn that Congress is now investi- 
gating the suliiect of polar exploration, with special reference to the 
discovery of the North Pole. There has never lieen a doubt in my 
mind that your book, " My Attainment of the Pole," is a true account of 
results successfully and bravely accomplished by yourself, and I hope 
and believe that the proposed inquiry will establish your claim to prior- 
ity in this great achievement. With kind regards and best wishes, 
Very truly, yours, 

Tarleton H. Bean. 
Dr. Tarleton H. Bean : Fish culturist. State of New York ; member of 
the Arctic Club of America ; member of Arctic expeditions to Alaska, 
1SS0-1SS9. 

1007 Califounia-Pacific Building, 

San Francisco, June 13, lOVi. 
Mr. E. C. Rost. 

Dear Sir : Replying to your favor of April 15 asking for my opinion 
regarding the possible attainment of the pole by Dr. Frederick A. Cook, 
I can only suggest that opinions are usually' valueless thiims unless 
based upon .iustifiable reasonings. I inclose herewith such reasonings 
regarding- Dr. Cook's polar work as I have been able to arrive at, to- 
gether with such matters as go to form the basis of these reasonings. 

I can not believe that anyone familiar with Arctic work, or even 
sutflciently familiar with Arctic history to appreciate the woi-th of 
what they read, can read vv'ith an unprejudiced mind Dr. Frederick A. 
Cook's " My Attainment of the Pole " and not be impressed with the vivid 
and realistic character of the wonderful story or fail to be impressed 
with the intelligence, the fidelity, and the quiet, determined courage of 
Its author. I do not believe any man sufficiently clever to construct 
this story as it is written without first having had the experience. 
Sincerely, 

Andrew J. Stone. 
(Andrew J. Stone, traveler and explorer ; has traveled over almost 
all parts of Arctic and sub-Arctic America ; also sledged the extreme 
Arctic coast throughout an entire winter.) 
82300—14576 



15 

Teatt, Kaxs., August 11. ISU,. 
Mr. E. C. RosT, 

The New Ebbitt, Washington, D. C. 
Dear Sir : I bavG always thought that both Dr. Cook and Peary 
I'cachod the pole or got within reasonable distance of it, and I have 
never been able to imdcrsLand why Cook has not been able to get a 
hearing before the proper committees and societies to pass upon bis 
records. Me is surely entitled to such a hearing. 

Very truly, yours, L. L. Dyche. 

(L, L. Dyche, member of various Peary and Cook Arctic expeditions ; 
professor of zoology and curator of birds and mammals since 1900, Uni- 
versity of Kansas; has made 23 scientific expeditions and hunted all 
over North America from Mexico to Alaska, including Greenland and the 
Arctic regions.) 

0-MAHA, Nebr.. Januarg .), lOl-J. 
Mr. EnxE.sT C. PtOST, 

Washington, D. C. 

Dear Sir : I have manuscript of many hundred pages for a book 
entitled ''Has the North Pole Been Discovered?"' It is ready for 
publication. If it is published, I shall be pleased to send you a copj'. 
I prove beyond dispute that Peary never went to the pole and never 
intended to go there. I prove it by Peary himself. I show also that 
there is not a scrap of truthful evidence indicating that Cook did not 
go there. I review all tnat I know has been written, including the 
action of the National Geographic Society and the testimony at Wash- 
ington in I'eary's behalf. 

Yours, very truly, Tnos. P. Hale. 

(Thomas F. Hall, traveler, mariner, expert on comparative Arctic 
literature.) 

Ithaca, N. Y., April 21, 101',. 
Mr. C. E. RosT, Chicago, III. 

Mr Dear >Sir : Regarding my opinion about the discoverer of the 
North Pole, I have never changed my mind regarding this from the 
morning I received notice that Dr. Cook had reached this imaginary 
spot known as the North Pole, nor, a few days following, that Peary 
had also reached this spot. I sincerely believe both of these men have 
been there. 

I have for a number of years been a close student of matters 
"Arctic," and I have had the pleasure of being in the field with both 
of these men. I have read every article that has come under my 
observation. I have talked with scientific men regarding the claims of 
each, from a scientific point of view, and the more I read and study 
on each side convinces mo that both succeeded. I have also talked 
with Admiral Schley on this suhject and can indorse his letter. I 
hope the controversy will come to an end. As Admiral Schley says, 
'• there is honor enough for tv.o." 

Very truly, yours, L, C. Beiient. 

EriEj Va.j June ?Ji, lOl'i. 
E. C. RosTj the NcAO Ebbitt, Washington, D. C. 

Dear Sir : From my own personal knowledge of Dr. Cook I regard 
the doctor as an unusually competent leader, equal to the greatest 
emergency. He is the epitome of honor and sincerit.v. 

Let the impartial limelight of a congressional investigation be 
turned onto the North Pole controversy. 

The period of Arctic darkness is long and trying, but when the 
light appears it also is long and much more satisfying. Those who 
are trying to block this investigation know full well why they are 
more comfortable in the dark. 

Sincerely, yours, Ralph L. Siiainwald^ .Jr. 

Ralph L. Shainwald, jr., explorer of Arctic Alaska. 

CoLDMBDSj OiiiOj December 2S, 191'i. 
' Mr. E. C. RosT, Washington, D. G. 

Dear Sir : In reply to your letter of the 2.5th instant, I would say 
that in the summer of 1894 I accompanied Dr. Frederick A. Cook to 
Greenland in the ill-fated Miranda, and had abundant occasion to ob- 
serve his straightforward and honest character and his gi-eat resource- 
fulness in times of peril. When our ship was injured upon the rocks, 
the courage and skill which he showed in venturing 100 miles north- 
82300—14576 



16 

ward along the rugged coast of Greenland in a small boat to get 
relief, prepared me for believing that he could accomplish any daring 
enterprise that was v?ithin reach of human effort. When, therefore, his 
report of reaching the pole came, my only doubt as to whether he had 
really reached the pole related to the difficulty of making accurate ob- 
servations under the conditions in which he was placed. But when 
Peary's detailed report appeared it was evident that either both 
had been to the same place or that Peary had copied Cook's notes. In 
an interview which I had with Admiral Schley, a year or two before 
his death, he expressed to me his perfect confidence in Dr. Cook's hon- 
esty and ability to make observations, since he knew that Dr. Cock 
took great pains to perfect himself in handling instruments before his 
last Arctic tour. 

Thrusting that the truth in this whole matter may come out, I am, 
Very truly, yours, 

G. Frederick Weight. 

Prof. G. Frederick Wright (author of "The Ice Age of America") 
Arctic traveler ; president of the Ohio State ArchjBological and His- 
torical Society. 

To the Congress of the United States: 

The discoveries en route to the North Pole will be an asset to future 
generations. By virtue of the pioneer efforts of American explorers we 
have a legitimate claim upon certain lands and resources of the far 
North. This claim will go by default until national recognition is 
given to the work of Arctic explorers. It v\-ould seem, therefore, to be 
a Federal duty to determine the validity of the work of polar explorers. 

In the Iiydrographic Office the money of the taxpayers is wasted by 
the publication of polar maps which record false data. The falsity of 
these maps is an insult to other nations, and a poison to the minds of 
future generations, for the school histories copy such false statements 
because they are sent out under the guaranty of the stamp of the 
United States Government. Is it not our duty to see that school chil- 
dren are taught verified geography, when the honor of the flag and the 
prestige of the Nation are at stake? The answer to this question com- 
pels a determination of the status of the discoveries en route to the 
pole. 

Engineer Peary has been paid from the Navy nearly $100,000 for 
oflieial services never rendered. He is now drawing a favor of $6,000 
annually, not for any duty ever performed in the Navy, but by vir- 
tue of appreciation of his polar efforts. The bill gives Peary $6,000 
yearly, but denies to him the credit of his claimed discovery of the 
pole. This denial for the credit of polar priority was forced in 
justice to my earlier polar attainment. There is, however, no con- 
gressional record to show that any examination has ever been made 
to determine the status of my demands for the claim of priorityj, in 
reaching the North Pole. This Federal half action upon the work of 
Enuineer Peary and absolute indifference to my work is an injustice 
to I'eary ; it is injustice to myself. It is an inexcusable sacrifice of 
national prestige. Either Peary is the discoverer of the North Pole 
and deserves full credit, or I am the discoverer of the pole and de- 
serve national recognition — or the $100,000 paid to Peary should be 
returned to the National Treasury. For if my case is not a national 
issue, how is Peary's? For the Secretary of the Navy has admitted 
that Peary's financial advantage is not due to his services to the 
United States Navy. 

The work of exploration and discovery has always been a legiti- 
mate field of conquest. More territory and more materia! resources 
have been placed under the flags of nations by explorers than by all 
the wars of all ages. The present wnr in Eurone, like-'most wnra 
of the past, is due mostly to overreaching for spheres of influence. 
The nations now at war have placed millions of lives, billions of 
finances, on the altar of sacrifice, to win for their descendants pre- 
ciselv the prizes peaceably, ethically, and honestly secured by ex- 
plorers, at a very small cost. Nevertheless, the pathfinding pioneers 
have always been competed to beg for mere subsistence for the battle 
drive into" the unknown, and returning, stripped of everything but 
life, they have gone, usually, to their graves under a blanket of abuse. 
A genera! who "has killed a thousand men is lauded to the zenith of 
glory during his lifetime, but he who discovers a new continent is 
appreciated only a hundred years after his soul wanders over the dead 
silence of the future. 

No soldier goes to fight because he expects a reward ; no explorer 
faces the death of tropical dangers nor the arctic tortures of famine 
82300— 1457G 2 



17 

and frost because he expects a reward. But when all is over, he does 
expect that a record of brotherly appreciation will be made. The 
polar quest, with its acciuisition of territory and new resources, has 
been fought for 400 years and yet nearly every explorer has gone to 
eternity with the sting of injustice instead of the flower of timely 
understanding. 

To obviate this during the lifetime of the men who claim to have 
reached the North Pole, my friends have insisted that there be a 
national determination of the status of the respective claims. 

The discoverv of the pole is not a personal matter. The flag that 
protects 100,000,000 people guarantees justice to the call of 100,000,000 
voices for the truth of history that will be taught in the books of com- 
ing generations. In proof of this demand for Federal action my 
friends have offe. t-d as a documental demand petitions, letters, and 
official correspondence of nearly 100,000 Americans. 

Contrary to a quite general impression, there never has been an 
official examinatioi of the relative merits, nor an investigation of the 
official status of the question of priority of the discovery of the North 
I'ole. A commission appointed by the University of Copenhagen did 
make a preliminary examination of a part of my data, and in the case 
of l-^ngineer I'eary a commission appointed by the National Geographic 
Society did make a preliminary examination of a part of his data. But 
in both cases the investigation was by way of recalculation of the 
nautical observations. Such observations, when taken alone, do not 
offer adequate proof. 

An explorer's record is his final official narrative. Therein he pre- 
sents all the disconnected field notes and all his observations. Unlike 
explorers in more favored regions, the arctic traveler, with snow for a 
bed and ice for a pillow, with cold fingers, chattering teeth, and an 
ever-shivering skin, makes only brief notes. These notes only serve as 
reminders, a kind of shorthand tabulation of daily events. Such nota- 
tions to others are not understandable, and yet in the end of 1909, 
when the hasty preliminary investigation was made, there was no other 
data accessible. The completed record was not ready until later. The 
first examination was therefore premature and incomplete. And fur- 
thermore, the expert opinion, the most important proof of this work, 
has only 1)een expressed in tlie last few years. 

Three bills are now pending in Congress, all aimed to adjust the 
claim for polar discovery and exploration. 

The first (S. .1. lies. 144) was hitroduced by Senator Miles Poin- 
DEXTER, of Washington. 

Tlie second by Representative Chaeles B. Smith, of New York (H. J, 
Res. 282). 

The third by Representative Charles B. Smith, of New York (H. J. 
Kes. 383), 

Contrary to a quite general impression, there is no tribunal, no so- 
ciety, or scientific bureau that can act with authority upon the merits 
or validity of an explorer's reports, and therefore, in presenting the 
facts upon which the claims for polar discovery are based, we are con- 
fronted at once by the quest for the precedence of the rating of earlier 
explorers. 

There have been severe and long-continued controversies following 
every important discovery, and since neirly all geographic societies 
are composed of laymen (not geographers), who pay a certain sum 
yearly for the privilege of membership, there is no recognized geographic 
society which can be regarded as a scientific body in the sense of a 
technical organization such as geologic and biologic societies. 

By an almost universal rule the explorer's work has been protected 
by some form of recognition from the government whose flag was car- 
ried into tbe unknown. This was preceded and followed by the slow 
process of digestion and assimilation of the pioneer's scientific data, 
and, finally, all doubts were stilled liy the verification of later travelers 
and the expert opinion of explorers and scientific experts who have 
made themselves specialists along similar lines of endeavor. 

It is now nearly six years since the double announcement of tbe dis- 
covery of the North Pole. Both records have been under the micro- 
scopic eye of all tbe people of all the world. Time enough has elapsed 
to elicit tbe verdict of the composite intelligence of the competent 
judges of all natirns. and, therefore, the time would seem to be oppor- 
tune for a national deiermination of the rival polar claims. 

To this end 1 will offer for the consideration of Congress and the 
special committees to which the respective bills have been sent the 
following abstract of the mateiial results of my last Arctic expedition. 
Upon the facts herein contained, and upon the supplementary corrobora- 
tive evidence and exjiert opinion herein presented, I base my claim 
for the credit of priority in reaching the North Pole. Part of this 
82300 — 14576 



18 

and much accessory data- is .included in " the Case of Dr. Cook," by 
Fred High, editor of the Platform. Stein^ay Ilall, Chicasro. 

With the assistance of -Tohn R.' Bradley, of New York, an expedi- 
tion was equipped for exploring the Arctic wilds. On .July 3, 1907, ali 
ra-raugoments were complete and we sailed in a specially equinped 'and 
rebuilt auxiliary schooner out of the harbor oi Gloucester, Mass. In 
the end of August we arrived at Annoatok, North Greenland, at a 
point 700 miles from the North Pole. There, aided bv .lohu U. Bradley, 
I finally organized an expedition to reach by sledge' the boreal center. 
Supplies were landed and a permanent camp was erected at Annoatok. 
lUidolph Franke remained as my sole civilized companion. During the 
long Arctic night that followed sledges were built, the equipment was 
perfected, Eskimos and dogs were trained for the later sledge journey 
over the Polar sea. Native men, vvomen, and children" extended 
willing hands to finally and thoroughly equip the polar sled train. 

At sunrise of 190S (Feb. 19) my expedition started for the pole, 
aiming to force a new route over and among the lands discovered by 
Capt. Otto Svcrdrup. 

On March 20 the last of the sunporting parties returned. I had 
•selected as my companions for the last dash two young Eskimos, Ah- 
we-lah and E-tuk-i-shook. We were then approximatelv'GO miles north 
of Capo Svartevoeg, in an air line 460 miles from tlie pole. To this 
point no one has ever denied my progress northward. The only point 
of my journey to the pole, therefore, which remains to be proven is 
the last 460 miles. 

It is furthermore conceded by everybody that when we were later 
carried adrift v.-estward on the return, that we traveled southward to 
.Tones Sound and from there back to Annoatok and south to Upernavik. 
The total conceded distance, therefore. co\ered by my expedition, includ- 
ing the detours, was approximately 3,000 miles. Even if we exclude 
the 460 miles under dispute, my journey over the pack ice multiplies 
liy three the longest journey over pack "ice on record before or since. 
For the longest other journey claimed over the polar pack ice is that 
of Engineer Peary, and since be seems to have traveled practically in 
an air-line from Cape Columbia to the pole, his greatest distance is 
840 miles ; therefore, if my destractors concede that I am able to cover 
more than three times the record distance on pack ice, then they also 
prove without further argument- the efflcicncy of my expedition. All 
discussion, therefore, on the complex problem of food and equipment is 
met by this doubly verified journey of 3.000 miles. 

Now, as to that last 400 miles, wliich Peary has chosen to challenge : 
At the very outset he keeps me in idleness on the lifeless waste of the 
polar ice for two months without explaining our movements. Less than, 
a hundred miles to the south v.-ere game lands. To the north was the 
reachable glory of the polar attainment. It is known that we did not 
go south at tliis time. It is not reasonable to suppose that one would 
sit on the ice for two months to deceive himself and the world. The 
only rational conclusion is that we did go north, for to do so was to 
satisfy an ambition nursed for 20 years. 

In going northward, as we reached the eighty-third parallel we 
crossed a great gap dividing the land-adhering pack from the more 
active circumpolar drift. As we neared the eighty-lifth parallel we dis- 
covered land westward. Between the eighty-seventh and eighty-eighth 
we crossed what seemed like ice-covered land. We reached the pole on. 
April 21, 1908, and noted for the first time in history the physical con- 
ditions about the top of the globe. I have given along this line an 
abundance of scientific data by which subsequent explorers can aflirm 
or deny my work. 

On September 1, 1909, Inspector Daugaard-Jenscn, the director of 
Danish North Greenland, wired his Government the first news : 

" Dr. Cook reached the North Pole on April 21, 190S. * * * The 
Eskimos of Cape York confirm Dr. Cook's story of his journey." 

The next message was sent to Mrs. Cook : 

" Successful. Well." 

In the third message I registered my claims with the International 
Bureau of Polar Research at Brussels. It was directed to the secretary, 
Prof. Georges Lecointe : 

" I reached the North Pole on April 21, 1908. Discovered land far 
north." 

En route from Greenland I had prepared a brief report of the main 
results of my journey to the pole. This was published in the New York 
Herald on September 2, 1900. Within a few days thereafter there was 
turned over to the New York Herald the complete original narrative as 
written while in the Arctic from the original observations before civili- 
zation was reached. This was published under the title, " The Conquest 
of the Pole," in instalments, from September 15 to October 7. 
82300— 1457G 



19 

The brief and preliminary record of mj- polar expedition as first pnte' 
lished In the New York Herald is a document of great importance. 
This is pointed out by Edwin Swift Balch in his historic analysis, " The 
North Pole and Bradley liand," page 42. In this first press narrative 
my claim, in specific detail, goes oa record. Here for the first time you 
have the assembled data of the original field notes. At the time when, 
this was offered for publication I had no way of knowing of Peary's 
later reported claims. 

The final and complete record of all the important results of my expe- 
dition were assembled and published in book form under the title " My 
Attainment of the Pole " in 1911. (The Polar Publishing Co., Stein- 
way Hall, Chicago.) 

Through all ages explorers have been rated not by disconnected field 
notes, nor by a mathematical test of calculation for position, but by the 
careful reexamination of all the data as presented in the final publica- 
tions. When to this is added the verifying and corroborative evidence 
of subsequent explorers, the pioneer's effort is substantiated for all 
time. In so far as I am able to .iudge the demands of an examining 
board, the records of the original data to support my claim as discoverer 
of the North Pole as above presented is complete. 

We next have to deal with the corroborative evidence, the trend of 
expert opinion, and charges of insincerity. At the very outset oft this 
line of examination I wish to record the broad statement that with 
but one exception no competent authority on Arctic exploration has 
ever denied my polai' success after the publication of my printed nar- 
rative in l)0ok form. The one exception is the attitude of En'^ineer 
Robert E. Peary. This statement ought to receive careful investigation, 
for there is a widespread belief in the minds of laymen that scientific 
men have given an unfavorable verdict. Of course, in a controversy 
which has been discussed in every center of culture and in every abode 
of civilization where ink is put to paper it is possible to dig up argu- 
ments on every phase of the polar conquest, .iust as loosely gathered 
statistics and hasty newsiiaper comment can be assembled to prove or 
disprove the honesty of my public document. But I repeat that, to 
m.v knowledge, there does not exist an official document in any lan- 
guage which denies my attainment of the pole upon scientific grounds. 

Whence, then, comes the widespread opinion of doubt? Some of this 
is due to the seeming impossibility of the task. Some disbelief fol- 
lowed the natural distorlions. exaggerations, and misinterpretations 
v/hich follow all news reports during times of eager press competition. 
Bui a little examination will show that four-fifths of the uncertainty 
in the public mind is due to a picarransed press campai.gn. I do not 
mean to infer that the pros'! has been subsidized. It has been influenced, 
but not by .$10,000 bills. Newspapers that can be bought are not worth 
buyiu.g ; but ever.y man in Dubiic life knows that it is possible for a 
half dozen men of large political and financial power to get togelher 
in Chicago or New York and start a storm which will lift or sink the 
public spirit of any man. This is particularly true in times of great 
news excitement, for at such times all newspapers of all the world are 
made the victims of the press bureaus of self-interest. The best proof 
of this is the bias of the present war news. Ever.v statesman in V\''asli- 
ington understands this kind of criminal inlustice, and yet the malig- 
nant perpetrators of this crushin.g steam-roller movement keep out of 
jail by a show of keeping within the law. 

Without malice, without at tempting to ape the cheap tactics of re- 
crimination, Imt simply in self-defense and in the inie"est of ethical 
.iustice in public life I want to record here certain facts which upon 
examination will prove a press campaign which for contemptible in- 
decency is not equaled even in the soul-blackening times of a presi- 
dential campaign, for, as is well known, in this polar dispute the oress 
of the entire world was sufficiently interested to copy the concocted 
stuff of the red-ink venders. 

Within a few months after m.y exDcdition had departed for the 
Arctic, in 1907, there was a meeting of the Peary Arctic Club in New 
York. At this meeting there was a vigorous discussion of my action in 
seeking the pole. Previous to this all of m.y work of exploration was 
given dignified recognition by Mr Peary and his < oopcrators. In proof 
of this case see the earlier Peary publications ; also statements bv Hon. 
Frank T. O'Haie, Congressional Pi,ecoi!D, January 22, 1915. But there- 
after suspicion was thrown over all my work. Previously I had been a 
coworker ; nov/ I was a rival : and forthwith a press campaign was 
organized that would belittle my attempt to outdistance the chronic 
official seeker of the pole. 

As an outcome of this meeting of the self-appointed Pole Ice Trust, 
pretending philanthropy, the first document on record is a letter sent 
82300—14576 



20 

to flic lutoiuational Bureau of Polar Research at Brussels, Belgium. 
It fell to my lot to see tbis letter and verify the signature of Robert E. 
Peary: I called for a copy, which was refused on the ground that 
copies of official correspondence could not be given. 

At a meeting of the Royal Society of Belgium in November of 1912, 
wnlch was called to discuss certain phases of the polar conquest. 
Prof. Georges Lecointe, the secretary of the International Bureau of 
Polar Research, produced this letter, and then said : " This letter is 
tho ke.y to the polar controversy. When j^ou understand this you will 
see through the entire press campaign which followed." The American 
consul general was present and can verify the transactions at that 
meeting. 

As nearly as I can remember, the letter officially charged that Dr. 
Cook was en route to the pole without having sought a license, without 
authority from any accredited organization. From which was in- 
ferred that I was an insurgent among explorers, piercing, without per- 
mission, certain reserved spheres of influence, and therefore my work 
was unethical, unscientiflc. and should not receive official recognition. 
Among other things in the same letter I was charged witli taking 
Peary's supplies, using his people, following in his route. These 
charges, as is shown by later developments, were absolutely false. 
The letter ended by the following statement : 

" If Dr. Cook returns and claims to have reached the pole, he should 
be compelled to prove it." 

For two years during my absence and before any claim was made, 
there came t'o the editorial desks of a thousand papers at regular inter- 
vals press material in which my prospective efforts were belittled, 
while Peary's next move was to bo the only official campaign for the 
pole, and most remarkable of all, this press material carried reports 
of Peary's actual work when no communication had been received from 
the polar regions. All of this and more is brought out in Chanter 
XXXIII of " Jly attainment of the pole." It is furthermore verified 
by Robert J. Usher, quoted by Hon. Louis FitzHeney in the Congkes- 
SiONAL Record December 2^, 1914 : 

" Mr. Usher has also furnished the following letter : 

" ' November 23, 1914. 

" ' My own observations lead me to believe more and more firmly 
that any unfavorable statement against Dr. Cook from encyclopedias, 
magazines, or school books can be traced back to some slanderous and 
unverified newspaper story. All such statements would simmer down 
to a few, which could be labeled " Hampton's slanders," etc. Proof of 
the falsity of these various statements is found outside of Dr. Cook's 
own statements.' " 

The Chicago Post in its issue of November 26, 1914, published tho 
following letter from Mr. Usher : 
To tJie Editor of the Post. 

Siu : ft'hy does your inspired headline writer refer to Dr. Frederick 
Cook as " Old Doc Cook " ? 

Dr. Cook was born in 1865. He is a bona fide M. D. and a member 
of the American Medical Association, as its latest directory attests. 

If the term is used as derogatory, it is well to remember that no 
scientific body has ever disproved bis claim of having reached the 
North Pole in 1908 and of having climbed to the top of Mount Mc- 
Kinley in 1908. 

Statements discrediting Dr. Cook can always be traced to cumulated 
newspaper statements made without reference to facts and originally 
Instigated, in most instances, by a press bureau whose sole purpose 
was to destroy Dr. Cook's good name. 

Robert J. Usher, 
Assistant Reference Lihrarian John Crerar Library. 

This press propaganda will be referred to later. Here I wish to 
record that my report of the discovery of the physical condition about 
the pole in April, 1808, as published on September 2, 1909, in the Ne-w 
York Herald, is the lirst information we have of the Boreal center. 

Engineer Peary, with his widely heralded expedition, left the shores 
of the United States one year later. He therefore left civilization 
about three months after I had reached the pole. The question of 
priority is established by the fixed dates of departure. The question, 
therefore, now at issue is not one of dates, but did either polar claimant 
reach the pole? 

In the bill which retired Peary on a pension of $6,000 per year 

Congress has conceded tliat Peary reached the pole on April 6, 1909, 

but his claim of being the only polar victor was denied by Congress in 

eliminating from the pension bill the words " discovery of the pole." 

82300—14576 



21 

It would seem iu the light of this Federal record that Teary's claim for 
recosrnition is closed, but the question of credit for priority is open. 

This phase of the polar connuest in the interest of national prestige 
and to give an official record for the benefit of our school children Is 
thoroughly summed up by the Hon. Louis FitzHenry. (See Congres- 
sional Record of Doc. 2'^.. 1014.) 

Engineer Peary's first report, wherein he gave his observations of the 
physical conditions about the pole, was issued about a week later than 
mine. In it he denied mv success. If therefore he unconsciously and 
unv/illingly proves the validity of my claim, he is a witness of doable 
value. 

An examination of Peary's various publications will prove con- 
clusively that his report is a scientific parallel of mine. This was first 
noted by the late Rear Admiral W. S. Schley and later substantiated by 
the researches of practically nil Arctic explorers. 

This comparative study of the data by which Peary proves my posi- 
tion step by step is really remarkable, more especially when it is re- 
membered that Peary is on record as saying that " Dr. Cook haa 
handed the world a gold-brick." 

By a careful search through the published official records Mr. E. C. 
Rost has plotted this parallel sciontific data. This is verified by S. Je 
Entrikin, Ralph J. Shainwald, Maurice Connell, L. C. Bement, Capt. 
Edward A. Haven, Dr. Middleton Smith, and other Arctic explorers. 
(Hon. Frank T. O'Hair, Congressional Record, p. 2311, January, 
1915.) 

A careful study of this relief chart (Fred High, The case of Dr. 
Cook) of comparative polar data by Rost, proves the statement of the 
late Rear Admiral Schley that " each is the eyewitness of the other's 
success," or that he who came second copied the first reports. 

On this chart it will be noted that Peary's report confirmed mine in 
every Important scientific detail. My account of the physical condi- 
tions about the pole did not fit any previous theory. Peary's report 
in substance was a parallel of mine. Peary denied my success and said 
that he was the only one who had reached the pole. If he therefore 
unconsciously proves my case, he is a witness of double value. The 
existence of the lands which I have reported are proven by Peary's 
description of land-divided ice farther east and by other similar parallel 
data, and thus my position is absolutely established to and beyond the 
eighty-eighth parallel, and Peary's position to within 100 miles of the 
pole is proven by a similar comparison. 

This leaves only about 100 miles of the disputed 4G0 miles to 
verify. Over this last 100 miles and at the pole I have reported an 
absence of land and life; a sea of highly colored moving ice, composed 
of large, smooth ice fields. Here and elsewhere I have reported winds, 
thermometric records, tidal action on the pack, physical conditions of 
the sea ice. These and all the minutest detail, down to the psychology 
of the men with me are confirmed by parallel statements by Peary 
in his official narrative. 

Rear Admiral W. S. Schley was one of the first to note that Peary's 
report v,ras in reality a scientific duplicate of mine, and that by his 
parallel material my position was verified and proven. In the end 
of 1909, at the time when it was popular to belittle and ridicule my 
work, Schley said his judgment Vv'as made upon his knowledge of Arctic 
conditions; that he had gone over both accounts carefully, and that 
it would take more than an academic lever to change his mind. Again, 
a year later, Admiral Schley placed himself on record by the follow- 
ing letter : 

1S26 I Street, 
'Washington, D. C, January 7, 1911. 

Dear Dr. Cook : I thank you very much for your kind letter, and 
I assure you that I have never varied in the belief that you and Civil 
Engineer I'eary reached the pole. After reading the published accounts 
daily and critically of both claimants I was forced to the conclusion 
from their striking similarity that each of you was the eye witness 
of the other's success. 

Without collusion it would have been impossible to have written 
accounts so similar, and yet, in view of the ungracious controversy 
that has occurred since, that view (collusion) would be impossible to 
imagine. 

While I have never believed tliat either of you got to within a pin- 
point of the pole, I have steadfastly held that both got as near the 
goal as was possible to ascertain, considering the imperfections of the 
instruments used, and the personal errors of individuals under circum- 
stances so adverse to absolute accuracy. 
82300—14576 



• 22 

Again, I have been liroad cnongh in my views to believe tliat tls<!i'e 
•was room enougia at the pole for two, and never narrow enough to 
■believe that only one. man got there. 

I believe that hoth arc entitled to the honor of achievement. - 
Yours, very truly, 

W. S, Schley. 

This letter was sent out hy the Associated Press on .January 11, 
1911. When Henry Gannett, one of Peary's esperts, read this in the 
papers, he phoned Admiral Schley and asked if he had wa-itten it. 
Admiral Schley answered, "Yes; what is the matter with it? Isn't 
it a good letter? " 

- iVIore than 50 other Arctic explorers and scientific experts have either 
in private letters or published statements expressed a similar opinion. 

This, with the detailed records as published in my narrative from 
-original documents and photographs, I offer as proof, to substantiate 
my claim as being the first to reach the North Pole. 

And, as further proof, let us note that my opponents do not argue 
on the merits of polar exploration, but by a series of side issues, such 
as the distorted news reports on the Mount McKinley ascent, the yel- 
low journal " confessions," the false reports of the Danish verdict, 
and a dozen other press explosions. I am ready to go before a com- 
mittee acting for the United States Government to present the other 
scientific results of my polar effort, and also to meet one and all of 
the insinuations aimed to undermine the sincerity of my work. 

To be able to present an unbiased expert opinion of the observations 
to determine geographic location taken en route to the pole Mr. Clark 
Brown, of Albany, N. Y., has reported as follows : 

RECALCULATIONS AND VERIFICATIONS OP NAUTICAL OBSERVATIONS. 

[By Clark Brown, of Albany, N. Y.] 

" Though Dr. Cook has never claimed absolute accuracy for his ob- 
servations, they are found to be at least as accurate and more complete 
than those of Mr. Peary. In fairness to Mr. Peary and those who have 
pronounced in his favor solely upon the nautical data. Dr. Cook has 
insisted that his observations be given the same test as was given to 
Peary's data by the congressional investigators. 

"After having seen and studied Dr. Cook's original field papers upon 
which his most important observations were calculated, and after hav- 
ing seen his day-by-day log book as written in duplicate while in the 
Arctic, I compared the original notes and data with the published state- 
ments, and I have reached the following conclusions from the quoted 
source : 

" The following extracts from Dr. Cook's book ' My Attainment of 
the Pole ' and the connecting explanatory notes supply the data for 
and are illustrated by the diagram. (Diagram of polar observations by 
Clark Brown.) 

" ' Our course when arriving at the pole,' says Dr. Cook, on pages 
288 and 289, ' as near as it was possible to determine was on the ninety- 
seventh meridian. The day was April 21, 1908. It was local noon. 
The sun was 11° 55' above the magnetic northern horizon. My shadow, 
a dark, purple-blue streak, with ill-defined edges, measured 26 feet in 
length. The tent pole, marked as a measuring stick, was pushed into 
the snow, leaving 6 feet above the surface. This gave a shadow 28 
feet long. 

" ' Several sextant observations gave a latitude a few seconds below 
90°, which, because of unknown refraction and uncertain accuracy of 
time, was placed at 90°. Other observations on the next day gave 
similar results, although we shifted camp 4 miles toward the magnetic 
south.' 

" On page 573 we find a transcript of his log book from which we 
sec that ou April 20 he set his course for the ninety-seventh meridian, 
and on April 21, 1908, he traveled from 1 a. m. to 9 a. m., covering 
13J miles. Having made camp, he slept in the tent a short time ; and 
then, after the observations at noon, from which he figured his position 
as latitude 89° 59' 45", he advanced 14" (shown in manuscript as 
— pd 14 — ), and pitched the tent, made a suov/ house, and prepared 
for two rounds of observations. During the time occupied in taking 
these observations he moved camp 4 miles magnetic south. This 
change of position is spoken of on pages 289, 296, 302, and 573. On 
page 296 he says : 

" 'At 6 o'clock, or six hours after our arrival at local noon, I arose, 
went out of the igloo, and took a double set of observations. Returning, 
I did some figuring, laid down on my bag. and at 10 o'clock, or four 
hours later, leaving Ah-we-lah to guard the camp and dogs, E-tuk-i- 
shook .joined me to make a tent camp about 4 miles to the magnetic 
82300—14576 



23 

south. My object was to have a slightly different position for subse- 
quent obspi-vations. 

" ' Placing our tent, bags, and camp equipment on a sled we pushed 
it over the ice field, crossed a narrow lead of sheeted young ice, and 
moved on to another field which seemed to have much greater dimen- 
sions. We erected the tent, not quite two hours later, in time for a 
midnight observation. These sextant readings of the sun's altitude 
were continued for the next 24 hours.' 

All the observations herein mentioned are found grouped on page 
302, as follows : 

The sun's true central altitude at the pole April 21 and 22, IDOS : 

Seven successive observations taken every six hours. Each observa- 
tion is reduced for an instrumental error of — 2' ; for semidiameter 
and also frr refractions and parallax, —9'. The seven reductions are 
calculated from sextant readings, generally of an upper and lower limb. 
Taken from my field notes, 
[April 21, 1908.] 

Ninety-seventh meridian local time, 12 o'clock (noon), 11° 54' 40", 
,Same camp, 6 p. m., 12° 00' 10". 

Moved camp 4 miles magnetic. 

South, 12 o'clock (midnight), 12° 3' 50". 
[April 22, 1908.] 

Six o'clock a. m.. 12° 0' 30". 

Twelve o'clock nom. 12° 14' 20". 

Six o'clock p. n;., 12° IS' 40". 

Twelve o'clock midnight, 12° 25' 10". 

Temperature, —41. Barometer, 30.05. 

Shadow, 27J feet (of 6-foot pole). 

From these observations on page 302 I have computed the mean posi- 
tion of the pole. The data from the Nautical .Mmanac required in 
reducing the observations is the sun's declination and the hourly 
change at Greenwich apparent noon as follows : 



Apr. 21, noon 
Apr. 22, nnrn 
Anr. 23. nocn 



Deelina- 
ticn. 



11 4S .57.5 

12 9 14. U 
12 29 20. 4 



Hourly 
change. 



50.96 
50. 47 
49.46 



Having plotted the relative positions of the throe camps in the imme- 
diate vicinity of the pole, I gave each a name. The first tent tamp is 
called " Slop 1." The snow igloo is called " Camp Ah-we-lah's Far- 
thest." The extreme tent is called " E-tuk-i-shook's LMrthest." 

After reducing each observation separately, I plot the approximate 
result of each observation in its relation to the suu and the observer's 
station. The notiUion Obs. 1, Q 1. and P 1 is used to shov/ the posi- 
tions of the observer and the sun at the time of the observation, and 
the position of the pole is indicated by the first observation. The same 
notation, numbered consecutively, is used for the subsequent observa- 
tions. 

The mean position of P 1, P 3, P 5, and P 7 gives the accepted posi- 
tion of the pole in one direction, while P 2, P 4, and P G locate it the 
other way. From this mean result the meridian and parallels are 
drawn. I have used the cliaracter " Q " to represent the sun and have 
taken a minute arc equal to a mile, to follow the practice of the United 
States Navy. The finished drav.ing and the table of computations has 
been verified by a number of experienced engineers, wlio have appended 
their signatures and have given their colleges and degrees. 

While some allowances must bo made for error b;/ refraction and 
time. Dr. Cook's observations prove that in his march between camps 
on April 21, 190S, and again on April 23, he was withip a fraction of 
a mile of the North Pole, and that at his last camp he was about a 
mile beyond the pole. 

An additional proof of the reasonable correctness of Dr. Cook's ob- 
servations is brought out in a study of the variation of the compass 
en route to the pole. (Map of Magnetic Variation in the North Polar 
Region. Compiled by Clark Brown, Albany, N. Y.) 

Claek BeowNj A[OariPj N. Y. 

82300—14576 



24 

There liaf5 been mucli idle speculation in the press ahout " records and 
proofs " of an explorer's doings. The proof and record of a voyage of 
discovery is the assembled data of the official reports, which are usually 
published in book form. Upon the records there presented an ex- 
plorer is judged by future generations. 

Since the publication of my complete report in book form in 1911, 
there has not, to my knowledge, been published in English or any other 
language, as indicated before, a single authentic paper or document or 
Ijook which denies my polar attainment on scientific grounds. On the 
other hand, from a historical standpoint the validity of my work is 
supported and the insinuations against it are invalidated by many pub- 
lications. Foremost among these is the book from the pen of the geo- 
graphic historian. Edwin Swift Balcb, entitled " The North Pole and 
Bradley Land," Campion & Co., Philadelphia. 

Mr. Fred High, in his " Case of Dr. Cook," summarizes the scientific 
deductions of Balcb as follows : 

" Before takinsj up Balch's unbiased analysis of the evidence of the 
North Pole discovery, it should be remembered that the work of Ad- 
miral V,'ilkes in the Antarctic came uncer the unfair criticism of rival 
interests, as did Dr. Cook's Journey to the pole. For more than 50 
years the name of Wilkes was taken from the map. Balch analyzed 
this injustice, fought the battle for Wilkes during 1.5 years against 
critics, including the Encyclopedia Britannica, and at last the Aus- 
tralian expedition rediscovered Wilkes Land, and thus Balch won 
against the onslaught of Sir Clements Markbam and others." 

The study of the polar controversy by Balch was worked out in a 
similar way. It is difficult to give an abstract, but we can quote his 
conclusions : 

Balch strongly emphasizes the fact that Dr. Cook could not have had 
anything on which to base his description of physical conditions north 
of 83.20° north latitude ; and as Dr. Cook's descriptions agree with 
those later given by Peary on a parallel route farther east, there could 
be no doubt that Dr. Cook's journey was made and that the line of his 
march across was fifst executed. 

The reason for this is that these statements can be based on nothing 
but Cook's own observations, for Cook started from Denmark, from 
south Greenland, before Peary started for Labrador from north Green- 
land, and therefore everything that Cook stated or wrote, published 
immediately after his arrival in Europe, must be based on what Cook 
observed or experienced himself. 

Cook's original narrative stands on its own merits ; it is the first and 
most vital proof of Cook's veracity, and yet it has passed almost 
unnoticed. 

There are three points in particular which claim attention. The first 
Is the account of the land sighted in 8-1.20° north to 85.11° north — 
Bradley Land. The second is the glacial land ice in 87.88° north. The 
third is the account of the discovery of the North Pole and the descrip- 
tion of the ice at the North Pole. 

Cook's first great discovery, the writer holds, was Bradley Land, 
named after his friend and backer. The land. Cook declared, had a great 
crevasse in it, making it appear like two islands, the southej'ly one 
starting at 81.20° north. Peary made no mention of land north of 
83.20° north. But he corroborated Cook about Bradley Land by sound- 
ing in 310 fathoms a little below 86° north, Bradley Land is placed 
on Peary's own map. 

" The second discovery of Cook's is the glacial land ice in 87° north 
to 87° north — 88° north," says the writer. "A closely similar occur- 
rence was observed by Peary on his 1906 trip in about 86° north 60° 
west." 

But the most important particular in which the two men agreed, in 
the mind of Mr. Balch, is in their description of the ice at the pole. 
Cook reported that it was " a smooth sheet of level .ice." The writer 
adds : " If that description of the North Pole is accurate, the writing of 
it by Cook, first of all men, on the face of it is proof that Cook is the 
discoverer of the North Pole." 

But not only was the ice at the North Pole smooth and level, but the 
snow there was " purple " in the story of Cook, a detail in which he 
was again borne out by Peary. 

" Purple sntiw," says the writer, " is linjcistic impressionism, an 
attempt to suggest with words what Frank Wilbert Stokes has done 
with paints in bis superb pictures of the polar regions. Hence," he 
says, " the use of the word ' purple ' by Dr. Cock, who is not a trained 
artist, proves that he "uas the eye of the impressionist painter, and that 
lie is an extremely accurate observer of his surroundings." 

" That Cook's description is accurate is, in the next place, certified 
to by Peary. Peary corroborates Cook absolutely about conditions at 
'82300—14576 



25 

the North Pole ; and Cook is corroborated by Peary not only by what 
Peary saw but by what he did. If there was anything in the western 
Arctic, between the North Poie and 87.47° north, but an ' endless field 
of purple snows,' smooth and slippery, Peary could not have covered 
the intervening- 133 geosraphical miles in two days and a few hours. 
Peary therefore, from observation and from actual physical performance, 
proves that Cook's most important statement is true." 

The evidence is thus examined step by step. The statements of the 
two men are compared word by word, and this is the conclusion 
reached : 

" In view of all these facts, it becomes certain that Cook must have 
written his description of the North Pole from his own observations, 
for until Cook actually traveled the western Arctic, between 88° north 
and the North Pole, and told the world the facts, no one could have 
said whether in that area there was land or sea, nor hare stated any- 
thing of the condition of its ice, with its unusual, perhaps unique, flat 
surface. 

" But Cook, in his flrst cable dispatch, stated definitely and positively 
and finally that at the North Poie there was no land, but sea frozen 
over into smooth ice, and Peary confirmed Cook's statements. 

" Cook was accurate; and the only possible inference is that Cook was 
accurate because Cook knew, and the further inevitable conclusion is 
that since Cook knew. Cook had been at the North Pole." 

In Europe there has been a general reexamination of the rival polar 
claims, and since the publication of the work of Edwin Swift Palch the 
trend of opinion of historic geographers has gradually vindicated Dr. 
Cook. Prof. Otto Paschin, president of the Geographical Institute of 
the Berlin University, has pubiis'^ed in the Berliner Ta^eblntt for .Tuly 
27. 1013. iilso in Petormann's Mitteiluns-er, No. 59. a scientific analysis 
of the injustice of the polar controvei'sy, in which he says that Dr. 
Cook has been unjustly suspicioned and wronged; that his proofs are 
sufflcient. 

" Cradually." says Baschin, " voices from everywhere are heard to 
take up Vv. "Cook's cause in his favor, and the truth of his reports of 
the attninment of the North Pole is now generally believed and 
accepted." 

Among many other Euronefin authorities. Dr. Fritz Machatschek, of 
AiT^tria. in the Deutsche Rundschau fiir Oeographie. Vol. I. No. 36, 
1013-14. makes out a clear case for Dr. Cook. After examininsr the 
evidence for and against the polar claims, he comes to the following 
conc'i'sinn ; 

" If Crok had really wished to fool the world, if his wholly competent 
renort (his book') which is before me, with the picturing of V^e most 
fenrful ovei-winterins: of 100S was only a chain of ties (as his detractors 
declare), and bf' in renl'ty went only a few days' march to the north 
fi-om Axel ITeihrrg Land, then one must ask. Why did he not turn 
backward in the same yenr to the Eskimo settlements in the northern 
part of Oreenlnnd ; why did be not want the world to believe that he 
could maire the rouni trin to the pole in one summer, just as Peary 
did it? Why did he voluntarily winter far from all i-elirf st^itions? 

" P.v unnrejudiced indues Cook's attninment of the North Pole can 
not he den'orl. and the wnrds of nalrh will bp'n to snread this verdict." 

By a cnrpful examination of the brief outline of the most imnortant 
data resultin<i from my joarney en rente to the pole any croup of 
men of nvera'^e intelligence cnn come to a rensonnble conclusion on 
the validity of my polar att.^inmpnt. There remains hut one phase: 
What is f'e verditt of expert opinion? I have civcn the opinion of 
the geographic historian, but what is the opinion of the polar ex- 
plorer? 

When Engineer Peary, reporting his work a year later than mine, 
wired that he had 'nailed the Stars and Strines to the pole" in a 
glad-handed spirit T wired Peary my congratulations and said there 
was room enough and honor enough at the pole for two. His renly 
to my friendly attitude was the famous " go!d-brick " message : " Dr. 
Cook has handed the public a gold brick." and thereafter Peary made 
himself witness, judge, and jury in a case where Peary was to derive 
the benefit. All of this is now newspaper history, but a brief review 
of this phase of the polar controversy is likely to be placed under the 
eyes of men who aim to dptermine the justice of both polar claims. 

Following the " sold-brick " messase Ppary chosp to force a press 
campaign to deny my success and to proclaim himself as the sole polar 
victor. Peary aimed to be retired as a rear admiral on a pension of 
.?6.000 per year. This ambition was granted, but Coniress rciected 
his claim for priority by eliminating from the pension bill the words 
" discovery of the pole." This, of course, was done because of my 
prior work. The European geographical societies, forced under dip- 
82300—14576 



26 

ifomalic preissurc to honor Peary, have also refused him the title of 
■■ discoverer." By a final verdict of the American Government and 
of the highest European authorities I'eary is therefore denied the 
fissumption of being the " discoverer of the pole," though his claim 
as a rediscoverer is allowed. The evasive inscriptions on the Poarv 
medals prove this statement, and the Coxgeessioxal Record gives 
the final Federal verdict. 

During- the time of the intense newspaper controversy it seemed to 
be desirable to bring the question to a focus by submitting to some 
authoritative body for decision. Such an institution, however, does 
not exist. Previously explorers had been rated by the slow process 
nf historic digestion and assimilation of the facts offered, but it was 
thought that an academic examination must meet the demands. En- 
gineer Peary first submitted his case to a commission appointed by. 
the National Geographic Society of Washington, D. C. This is a 
private, unoflicial organization, in which anybody is admitted as a 
'' national geographer " upon payment of $2 per year. It is, further- 
more, well known that this society was financially interested in Peary 
to the extent of .$25,000, and some of its favored members were the 
recipients of valuable furs and trophies. Common decenc.v would 
demand that an organization with a monetary interest and whose 
members had received illegitimate favors would'^ withdraw as a jury, 
but a little investigation v/ill show that such ethical justice does not 
enter the realm of the Natioual Geographic Society. 

This society did fully and freely indorse Peary as the " discoverer 
of the North Pole," and its action was indorsed without independent 
examination by other American societies. However, a year later in 
Congress the same men who acted as a commission of experts for the 
above society unwillingly admitted that from a nautical standpoint 
there was in Peary's proofs no positive proof. 

My data was sent to a commission appointed by the University of 
Copenhagen. The Danes reported that the material presented was in- 
complete. This statement, however, did not carry the interpretation 
that the pole had not been reached. The Danes have never said, as 
they have been quoted by the press, that I did not reach the pole ; quite 
the contrary ; the University of Copenhagen conferred the degree of 
doctor of philosophy and the Royal Danish Geographical Society gave 
a gold medal, both in recognition of the merits of the polar e^"ort. 

This early examination was based mostly upon the nautical calcu- 
lations for position, and both verdicts when analyzed gave the version 
that in such observations there was no positive proof. The Washington 
jury ventured au opinion. The Danes refused to give an opinion, but 
showed their belief in my success by conferring honorary degrees. 

It is the unfair interpretation of the respective verdicts by the news- 
papers following an admiral making propaganda that precipitated the 
turbulent air of distrust which previously rested over the entire polar 
achievement. All this, however, has now been cleared by the final 
word of 50 of the foremost polar explorers and scientific experts. 

In so far as they were able to judge from all the data presented in 
the final books of both claimants, the following experts have given it 
as their opii.ion that I reached the pole : 

Rear Admiral W. S. Schley, United States Navy, commander of the 
Greely relief expedition. 

Capt. Otto Sverdrup, discoverer of the land over which Dr. Cook's 
route was forced. 

Capt. .T. E. Bernier, commanding the Canadian Arctic expeditions. 

I'rof. G. Frederick Wright, author of The Ice Age of North America. 

Brig. Gen. P. .T, A. Cleary, retired. 

Prof. W. H. Brewer, for 10 years president of the Arctic Club of 
America. 

Prof. .Julius Payer, of the Weyprecht-Payer expedition. 

Prof. L. L. Dyche, member of various Peatry and Cook expeditions. 

IMr. Edwin S. Brooke, jr., of the Crocker land expedition. 

Mr. Maurice Counell, of the Greely expedition and the United States 
Weather Bureau. 

Prof. Samuel P. Orth, Cornell University, Miranda expedition. 

Mr. S:imu(I J. Entrikin, second in command, Peary expedition, 1S94. 

Dr. Middletou Smith, Point Barrow expedition. 

Capt. O. C. Hamlet, United States Army. Arctic Revenue Service. 

Capt. E. A. Haven, of the Ziegler expedition. 

Prof. Otto Baschin, president of the Geographical Institute of the 
Berlin University. 

Dr. A. Wedemeyer, of the German imperial marine department. 

Mr. Andrew .T. Stone, explorer of the north coast of America. 

1\y. Dillon Wallace, Labrador explorer. 

Mr. Edwin Swift Balch, author of The North Pole and Bradley Laud. 
S2300— 14576 



27 

Capt. Ejnar Milkelsen, leader of expeditions to Behring Sea and 
East Greenland. 

Capt. R. Bergendahl, Giala-Ziegler expedition. 

Commodore John Byers Wirt, commanding naval veterans, United 
States Navy. 

1<'. H .pkinson Smith, author, artist, traveler. 

Capts. Johan Menander, B. S. Osbon, and Thomas F. Hall. 

Messrs. Monry Biederbeck, trederick B. Wrignt, F. F. Taylor, Ralph 
H. Cairns, Theodore Lerner, M. Van Rysselherghe, J. Knowles Hare. 
Charles E. Uilliet, Homer Rogers, R. C. Bales, K. C. Rest, L. C. Bement, 
Clarence Wychoff, Alfred Church, Archibald Dickinson, George B. But- 
land, Ralph Shainwald, Henry Johnson, Clark Brown, W. F. Armbruster, 
John R. Bradley, Harry Whitney, and Rudolph Franke. 

Drs. T. F Dedrick, H. J. Egbert, W. H. Axtell, A. H. Cordier, and 
Henry Schwartz. 

Father William F. Rigge, astronomer, Creighton University. 

Judge Jules Leclercq and Prof. Georges Lee inte, secretary of the 
International Bureau of Polar Research ; and others. 

Thus indorsed by practically all polar explorers, my attainment of 
the pole and my earlier work of discovery and exploration is further 
established by the following honorary pledges of recognition (these 
are now in my possession, tue press reports lo the contrary being un- 
true) : 

By the King of Belgium, decorated as knight of the Order of Leopold. 

By the University of Copenhagen, in conferring the degree of Ph. D. 

By the Ri.yal Danish Geographical Society, presentation of a gold 
medal. 

By the Arctic Club of America, presentation of a gold medal. 

By the municipality of the city of Brussels, presentation of a gold 
medal. 

By the Royal Geographical Society of Belgium, presentation of a gold 
medal. ^ 

By the municipality of the city of New York, with the ceremony of 
presenting the keys and offering the freedom of the city. 

By the physicians of Benton Harbor, Mich., presentation of a gold 
medal. 

Without denying Engineer Peary's success, I note that his case rests 
upon the opinion of three of his < fTicial associates in Washington. Three 
men acting Kr a society financially interested — three men who have 
never seen a piece of polar ice — have given it as their opinion that on 
April 6. 1009 (about a year after my journey), Mr. i'cary reached the 
pole. By many this was accepted as a final verdict of experts for 
1 eiry ; but are such mrn dependable experts? Furtnermore, tue mere 
fact that Peary was under a pension of .^G,OUO per year during the agi- 
tation of t''e rival polar claims has f reed the liua! public opinion that 
Peary is cfficially accepted as the discoverer of the pole. No such injus- 
tice was lijiended by Congress, and this uiismlerpretation surely forces 
the action to make "my prior claims as discoverer of the N(U'th Pole a 
Federal issue. In the interest of fair play, we, in a democratic form of 
government, will not concede that a pension and a uniform decides a 
question of national honor. 

In the abo^e outline of my claim for recognition as discoverer of the 
North Polo I have tried to indicate five independent methods of exami- 
nation and verifieati n : 

First. An examination of the important data embodied in my various 
reports which have been issued as public documents. These are the 
official records of the expedition. This I am ready to supplement by the 
accessible field notes and photographs. 

Second. The comparative rrethod of verification which was indorsed 
hy Rear Admiral Schley, which has been plotted by Mr. E. C. Rost 
and also verified by a number of Arctic cxpioi-ers. 

Third. An examination and recalculation of the nautical observations 
for position as outlined by Clark Brown and verified by competent 
experts. 

Fourth. The acute historic analysis and certification of certain facts 
and stages of progress as outlined by Edwin Swift Balch in his book, 
" The North Pole and Bradley Land." 

Fifth. The expert opinion of the Arctic explorers of all nations. This 
ought to be supplemented by calling upon expert- witnesses of living 
explorers and scientific men who specialise in this line of research. 

If there is any othcsr method of examination that it is thought im- 
portant to pursue, I am ready to offer all the assistance I can. All that 
1 have ever asked for is a lair hearing and a fair understanding, and 
my main object in getting the data of my voyage of polar discovery and 
esplorntion before Congress is to have a Federal record for future 
82300 — 1457S 



generations, which record will fortify our claims to new lauds and 
valuable resources of the north. 

In reply to the many Insinuations against the sincerity of my polar 
efforts I ask the privilege to record that every vehicle of doubt was 
rolled out of the Peary admiral-making camp. However, fate has been 
unkind to Peary, for to-day every side attack that he has forced on me 
can be used with double force against Pearv. It would seem that in 
a sportsmanlike claim for national honor the scientilic merits of the 
work in question would be the sole test. I have answered all in the 
last pages of the book, " My Attainment of the Pole." Peary chose 
to paint his anger and animosity in the flaring red ink of a press cam- 
paign. In his book, " The North Pole," Pearv ignores his previous 
desperate attempt to disprove ray prior claim by the mere assertion 
that he is the " discoverer," and that no one else could reach the pole 
without adopting the " Peary system." 

However, it is worthy of note that no one since has adopted the 
"Peary system," neither Amundsen, Scott, or McMillan, and that the 
best record of this "' system " is less than one-third of the conceded 
distance covered by my system. Peary has spent about a million dol- 
lars to build his system ; mine has cost less than ,$10,000. An investi- 
gation of the comparative scientiflc results of the two systems will 
bring out some important lessons for future explorers. 

I do not ask that the floor of Congress be used to air a personal 
dispute. Indeed, I have always taken the ground that the cheap tactics 
of trying to bury the main issues by side attacks should not be dragged 
into a contest for national honor. If, however, this simple problem 
of proving my claim for the credit of priority in reaching the North 
Pole is to be rated by side issues, then I do ask for the common justice 
of a court of law wherein the credibility and self-interest of the venders 
of distrust be first examined, and, above all, I want the opportunity of 
facing my accusers. 

Since the introduction in Congress of the various bills bearing upon 
the polar problem every Senator and Representatives has been sent 
certaiu abusive letters and publicity material. On the desk, therefore, 
of every Congressman there is proof that this battle is to be fousht, 
not upon the merits of the work, but upon the striking force of insinu- 
ations upon personal veracity. If this is to be the method of examina- 
tion. I am ready to open the back pages of my past life and will 
insist upon going into the minutest detail ; but in such an event both 
polar claimants should be judged by the same standard, and. further- 
more, the men responsible for the campaign of doubt should first be 
put under a similar test. 

As a prelude to tliis kind of examination I wish to record an outline 
of the admiral-making campaign, from whicli, I am ready to prove, 
emanated every charge against my sincerity. This, it will be remem- 
t)ered, was began two years before my return from the north. 

In tlie end of September, 1909, when the public wearied of Peary's 
unsDortsmanlike attitude, mostly because of his " gold-brick "' messages. 
Peary wired Gen. Thomas Hubbard to meet him to direct a campaign 
against Dr. Cook. Tlie editor of the New York Times was also sxiin- 
moned. This part of the deal is a matter of public record in the press 
of the day, but the doings behind closed doors that followed have never 
been made public. Thereafter, however, with but one exception (record 
of Peary's injustice about Benton Harbor, Mich. ; documents published 
of Benton Harbor November 18 to 24, 1913), Peary became a mental 
prisoner of Hubbard. The New York Times and its affiliated papers 
became the mouthpiece of a new campaign, best designated as the 
admiral-making propaganda. Herbert L. Bridgman, the self-confessed 
mental valet of Hubbard, had previously wired I'eary over the New 
York Herald wires to put a soft pedal on future " gold-brick " mes- 
sages. Thereafter Gen. Hubbard became Peary's press agent and 
Bridgman the dispenser of pro-Peary press fabrications. 

It is known that Gen. Hubbard was the president and his under- 
ling, Bridgman, was secretary of the Pole Ice Trust, otherwise known 
as the Peary Arctic Club. The Pole Trust was changed to a Peary 
press bureau, and to prove the power of this press bureau Bridgman 
told Clark Brown, of Albany. N. Y., that i?350.000 had been subscribed 
" to see Peary through." The millionaire press agent. Gen. Hubbard, 
told Belmore Browne, of Tacoma, that he would spend his last dollar 
to beat Dr. Cook, and forthwith money began to pour into the melting 
pot of polar defamation. Another tin soldier, the would-be United 
States Senator known in Tacoma as " Slippery .Tim Ashton," was en- 
gaged for a mysterious missison. Ashton had learned something in 
bis campaign for the Senate, and he added his slippery political meth- 
ods to the slime-dispensing Hubbard's methods. On the day before 
New Y'ork officially received' me as the discoverer of the North Pole by 
82300— 1457G 



29 

ofEering the honor of the freedom of the city there appeared a press 
broadside of false statements, lilie that which is concocted against a 
candidal fi for office on the day before election. Gen. Ashtou was the 
self-confosscd vender of this. Gen. Huljbard was the instigator, and 
I'eary was the prolit sharer. In this full page of press material, by 
which 1,000 papers were made a party to the conspiracy, it was at- 
temoted to show that Mount McKinley had not been climbed by me as 
I had previously described. Gen. Hubbard next paid some ?S,000 to 
Belm.ore Browne and others to gather anri-Cooii reports bearing upon 
the ascent of IMount IMcKinley. These reports were recently sent to 
various Congressmen v.-ith letters from Gea. Hubbard. If the exam- 
ining board aims to go further into this problem, I am ready to present 
other documents. 

For the present I propose to support my first ascent of Mount Mc- 
Kinley by the following documents : 

1. The official record of the expedition, " To the Top of the Conti- 
nent " ; Doubleda.y. Pnse & Co., New Yorlc. 

2. Chapter 34 of " My Attainment of the Pole," third edition ; Polar 
Publishing Co., Steinway Hall, Chicago. 

3. " Mount McKinley : Its Bearing on the Polar Controversy," by 
E. C. ICost. 

4. " Mount McKinley and Mountain Climbers' Proofs," by Edwin' 
Swift Balch. 

5. Hon. Pa.\XK T. OTlAiR, Coxgee.ssiox.^l Record, .January 22, 1915. 
In further proof of this vile press campaign, I offer an article by 

Elbert Hubbard, The Philistine, ".Vrticle on -Vrctic explorers." page 161. 
Since Elbert Hubbard says that he was on the editorial list of a pub- 
licity bureau, and since it is known that this bureau reaches 6,000.000 
people daily, the article in question, t'lough not intended as scientific 
data, would seem to be material proof of a very tar-reaching press 
propaganda, and again I rppeat it is. furthermore, this same press 
pronaganda which is responsible for most of the polar distrust. 

Following the black-hand efforts of the Mount McKinley attack. Gen. 
Hubbard and his hirelings moved camp to the Hubbard Memorial Hall 
at Washington, D. C. Here (ien. Hubbard a-^d his a.gent, Gilbert Gros- 
venor, are engaged in a get-rich quick scheme which they call the Na- 
tional GeograpMc Society. In return for t'le easy cash of $2 per year, 
Grosvenor makes a national .geographer with er;ual facility of a s"v("'t 
sweeper or a diplomat; all who will pay the .*2 get by post a hig'ily 
colored certificate of membership. This certificate, for bald faced dis- 
honesty a"ed deception, would put federally suppressed mining stocks to 
sh.ame. TIh-cp hundred thousand people are t'nis deceived to become 
members of this organization, which, with inconceivable vanity, calls 
itself the National Geographic Society, referred to in the following reso- 
lution : 

In the House of Representatives, 

Janvary 21, 1015. 
Mr. Smith of Maryland submitted the following resolution, which 
was referred to the Committee on the Post Office and Post Roads and 
ordered to be printed : 

House resolution 709. 
Whereas the National Geograp'nc Society of Washington, D. C, a pri- 
vate enterprise, enjoys i)rivileges granted by the Post Office Depart- 
ment which are not granted to other magazines, but which tbe Third 
Assistant I'ostmaster (ienpral, in a letter dated .January 26, 1914, says 
he has and is conceding to the National Geographic Society ; and 
Whereas this discrinJeation by the Post Olrice Department in favor of 
the National Geographic Society means a loss of over $300,000 an- 
nually to the Post Office Department: and 
Whereas since the National Geograph.ic Society is not national (in the 
sense that it is not a bureau of nor connected with the National Gov- 
ernment in any capacity whatsoever), is not geographic, is not sci- 
entific, and is not a society, but is simply and solely a private pub- 
lishing house, no special privileges should be granted to it : There- 
fore be it 

Resohed; That the Postmaster General explain to Congress why 
privileges amounting to discrimination are granted to the private enter- 
prise known as the National (Geographic Society. 

Gen. Hubbard easily annexed this society to the North Pole Trust. 
Its treasury was separated from $2.5,000 to get in on the ground floor 
with Peary. This !i;25.000. by the way, vvas the price paid for the privi- 
lege of acting as a .jui'y for Peary and Hubbard. The same Gen. Hub- 
bard, as admitted by ex-President Taft, requested the President to see 
Peary through on the admiral-making trail. All of this is recorded in 
82300—14576 



30 

the CoxGREssiONAL RECORD and elsewhere, if the esamiuing board 
chooses to investigate tlie injvistice of this Ivind of double-dealing. 

The part oi this same campaign which is material just now is re- 
corded in the various efl.'orts by which Gen. Hubbard has tried to pre- 
vent a bearins on the bills now before Congress. First, Grosvenot 
made his rounds amoog the Congressmen lobbying for Peary and serv- 
ing out Gen. Hubbard's insinuations about the ascent of Mount Mc- 
Kinley. 

This was followed l)y personal letters with books to Congressmen, 
always about Mount BIcKinley. 

A little later a Philadelphia lawyer, by the name of Alexander, took 
np the I-Iublnird burden by sending letters to Congressmen, accompanied 
by a nameless and dateless press sheet. This press sheet is the dupli- 
cate of an anonymous letter signed " Veritas," which previously was 
sent all over the country by some one. Again in this the Ilubbard- 
McKinley fabricated charges were sent out. The spineless Alexander 
soon wearied of his task, and that congressional laundry now used by 
those who have dirry national linen to wash — the Congressional Infor- 
mation Bureau — was pressed into service. As is well known, since 
lobbying has become unhealthy, this bureau is sul)stituted for the former 
Capitol gum shoers, and mail carriers are made to do the work for 
which former lobbyists were sent to jail. Again, by this method Gen. 
Hubbard's false statements about Mount McKinley were sent out. 

Mount McKinley has no connection with the conquest of the pole ; 
but since it is the illegitimate creation of the Hubbard-Peary family ; 
since it is the while hope of the North Pole Trust and its subsidi- 
ary, the National Geographic Society ; since Gen. Hubbard has wa- 
gered his millions in raising this white hope, by all means from this 
iingle it is a material subject for investigation. 

It will be remembered when I returned and reported an average 
speed of 15 miles per day. Gen. Hubbard and company charged me with 
the crime of exceeding ilie polar speed limits. When Peary returned, 
rei)ortlng a speed that doubled mine, there was a dead silence in the 
I'ole Trust. 

About two months ago Donald B. McMillan reported the disappear- 
ance of Peary's " Crocker Land." Again there is dead silence in the 
Uubl)ard-I'eary camp. Why? 

Again I insist, if the claims for polar honors are to be judged by past 
records, ethics, and morals, I accept the challenge, but I want to face 
my accusers. 

As one of the interested parties of an unjustified and unwarranted 
controversy I am bound to give vent to the pain of the whip of injus- 
tice which has been snapped at me, but all I ask for is a verdict on 
the merits of my polar efforts. I bear no malice to anyone. I do not 
claim to have placed my bat on the North Pole ; I do not claim lo have 
placed my feet on the pin point of the earth's axis. I certainly did not 
nail a piece of buntint;- to a pole of frozen air. but I do claim to have 
lifted the Stars and Stripes first of all men at the boreal center. I 
do claim that the American eagle has spread its wiugs of glory over 
the world's top. I do not deny that there is room enough and honor 
enough under those wings for others. 

My appeal to Congress and to my fellow countrymen is not entirely 
per.sonal. The polar regions have certain valuable resources which 
will be an important asset to future generations. It is true the 
North Pole is iu^the center of a deep sea. It has no value, either 
scientific or commercial, and no explorer ever supposed it would have. 
The poles of the earth could be better and more accurately located 
from Vrashington than in the regions of the poles. To touch the 
pin point of the pole, therefore, is not the object of polar exploration. 

Our main object is to pierce the unknov/n and replace the blank 
spots upon our charts by the topographic outline of lands,' the de- 
lineation of seas, and above nil to bring back a knov.dedge of the 
physical condition about the top of the globe. Such knowledge ia 
very important to the people of all sections of the earth. For ex- 
ample, our weather conditions are not entirely understandable until 
we know the weather of Canada. In Canada weatuer is a mystery 
until the storm-delivering centers about the pole are studied. The 
same is true of geology, of biology, of anthropology, and of every 
branch of national science. 

There is an interlinking of all the terrestrial conditions, and, there- 
fore, to know the globe as a whole thevi must not be large blank 
spots on onr maps. To meet this demand )s the object of all explora- 
tion. This has been met by the recorded results of my attainment of 
the pole. It is certified by the expert cpinion of my own peers — ■■ 
the Arctic explorers of all the world. 
82300— 14.J76 



Hollinger 

pH S3 

MiU Run K)3.2193 



^ 



iiiiiii 

029 708 050 J 



HoUinger 

pH 8 J 

Mm Run H)3»2193 



